CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 01-04-01088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd. Universal Computer Services, Inc. And Dealer Computer Services, Inc. v. Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc. ADP, Inc., Business Solutions, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., and SMC Luxury Cars, Inc.

This trade secrets case involves Appellants Universal Computer Systems, Inc. (UCS) and Appellees Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc., ADP, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., SMC Luxury Cars, Inc., and Business Solutions, Inc. (collectively DSI). The parties had a dispute regarding trade secret misappropriation and a breach of a license agreement, which they agreed to arbitrate. The trial court confirmed the arbitrators' decision, which UCS appealed, alleging improper discovery orders and 'gross mistakes' by the arbitrators. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's confirmation, finding that any error in the trial court's discovery order was ameliorated by the arbitrators' full consideration of evidence, and that UCS failed to demonstrate gross mistake in the arbitration decision.

Trade secretsArbitrationDiscovery sanctionsArbitration awardCopyright preemptionSoftware licensingConfidentiality agreementBreach of contractGross mistakeTexas General Arbitration Act
References
21
Case No. 03-07-00551-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2009

Apollo Enterprises, Inc. and WorkingRx, Inc. v. ScripNet, Inc.

This appeal addresses the exclusive jurisdiction of the Texas Division of Workers' Compensation over disputes concerning payments from workers' compensation insurance carriers to pharmacies. Appellants Apollo Enterprises, Inc. and WorkingRx, Inc. (WorkingRx) challenged the dismissal of their tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims against Appellee ScripNet, Inc., a pharmacy benefits manager. The district court had dismissed all claims based on the Division's exclusive jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims directly involving incorrect U&C estimates and the erroneous application of ScripNet contract rates, classifying these as medical fee disputes. However, the court reversed and remanded claims asserting that ScripNet tortiously caused pharmacies to enter contracts with ScripNet and diverted reimbursement claims, concluding these did not constitute medical fee disputes subject to the Division's exclusive jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive JurisdictionMedical Fee DisputesPharmacy Benefits ManagementTortious InterferenceCivil ConspiracyContract LawStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
53
Case No. 14-07-00953-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2009

Lowe's Home Centers Inc & Natasha Tanner v. GSW Marketing, Inc. F/K/A Salesmaker, Inc. D/B/A CSA Services Southwest and Snow Mountain Construction, Inc

Natasha Tanner, an employee of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., was injured when a toilet tank fell from an elevated display and struck her head. She, along with Lowe's which intervened to assert subrogation rights, sued multiple entities including Snow Mountain Construction, Inc. (who built the display) and GSW Marketing, Inc. f/k/a Salesmakers, Inc. d/b/a CSA Services Southwest (who maintained the display) for negligent activity and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Snow Mountain and Salesmakers. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Tanner provided no evidence that either company had a duty to discover the toilet was incorrectly assembled or that they were engaged in ongoing negligent activities at the time of her injury. The court determined that the defendants' contractual obligations did not extend to inspecting the internal assembly of the toilets.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationDuty to InspectIndependent ContractorDisplay AssemblyProduct SafetyCausationTexas Appellate Law
References
27
Case No. W2018-00084-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2021

Milan Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. F/K/A Milan Express, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc.

This case addresses the application of the economic loss doctrine to fraudulent inducement claims and the definition of 'goods' under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Milan Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (Milan) sued Navistar, Inc. and Volunteer International, Inc., alleging fraud and TCPA violations related to its purchase of over 200 Navistar ProStar trucks with MaxxForce engines. Milan claimed Navistar misrepresented the trucks' reliability and performance. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding that the economic loss doctrine bars Milan's fraudulent inducement claim because the misrepresentations concerned the quality of goods in a contract between sophisticated commercial parties. The Court also affirmed that Milan's TCPA claim failed as the trucks were not 'goods' as defined by the TCPA for commercial entities. Consequently, the plaintiff's award of attorney's fees under the TCPA was set aside, and Volunteer International, Inc. was awarded attorney's fees on appeal.

Economic Loss DoctrineFraudulent InducementTennessee Consumer Protection ActCommercial ContractsProduct LiabilityWarranty ClaimsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewTruck ManufacturingEngine Defects
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2009

APOLLO ENTERPRISES, INC. v. ScripNet, Inc.

This appeal examines the exclusive jurisdiction of the Texas Division of Workers’ Compensation over disputes concerning payment amounts due from workers’ compensation insurance carriers to pharmacies. Appellants Apollo Enterprises, Inc. and WorkingRx, Inc. (collectively, WorkingRx) are companies that purchase assignments of workers’ compensation reimbursement claims from pharmacies. Appellee ScripNet, Inc. is a pharmacy benefits management company (PBM) that contracts with insurers to process and pay pharmacy reimbursement bills. WorkingRx sued ScripNet alleging tortious interference and civil conspiracy, primarily claiming that ScripNet caused carriers to underpay on reimbursement claims or diverted claims away from WorkingRx. The district court dismissed all of WorkingRx’s tort claims based on exclusive jurisdiction and exhaustion-of-remedies. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of WorkingRx’s claims related to incorrect U&C estimates and erroneous application of ScripNet contract rates, finding these to be medical fee disputes falling under the Division’s exclusive jurisdiction. However, the court reversed and remanded the dismissal of WorkingRx’s claims that ScripNet wrongfully caused pharmacies to bind themselves to ScripNet contract rates and wrongfully “diverted” pharmacy reimbursement claims, concluding these claims do not fall within the Division's exclusive jurisdiction as they do not constitute medical fee disputes over amounts due from carriers under the workers’ compensation act and rules.

Workers' CompensationExclusive JurisdictionMedical Fee DisputesPharmacy Benefits ManagerTortious InterferenceCivil ConspiracyAdministrative RemediesStatutory InterpretationReimbursement RatesAssignment of Claims
References
33
Case No. 14-00-00711-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2004

the Chair King, Inc., Chair King, S.A., Inc., Jerome Kosoy, M.D., M.E. Ford and Associates, Beautique, Inc., Discovery Services of Texas, Inc., Vantage Shoe Warehouse, Inc., Counselor Systems, Inc., Pope and Booth, P.C., Jeffrey K. Musker, D.C., and Pope v. GTE Mobilnet of Houston, Inc. and Chick-Fil-A, Inc.

This case concerns a class action lawsuit filed by a group of individuals and entities, referred to as 'Recipients,' against GTE Mobilnet of Houston, Inc. and Chick-Fil-A, Inc. (the 'Advertisers'), alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) due to unsolicited fax advertisements, alongside common-law claims. The appellate court clarified that states are not required to 'opt-in' to allow private TCPA claims but can 'opt-out,' and confirmed the TCPA's applicability to intrastate faxes, its constitutionality under the Commerce Clause, and the validity of its minimum damage provision against due process and free-speech challenges. The court affirmed summary judgment for Chick-Fil-A based on the statute of limitations. However, it reversed the summary judgment for GTE Mobilnet regarding the TCPA claims of four specific appellants, remanding those for further proceedings, while upholding summary judgment for GTE Mobilnet on all common-law claims and the TCPA claims of other appellants who lacked sufficient evidence.

Telemarketing PracticesFax AdvertisementsTCPAInterstate CommerceState JurisdictionFederal PreemptionFirst AmendmentDue ProcessStatute of LimitationsSummary Judgment Reversal
References
63
Case No. NO. 01-11-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2013

Fairways Offshore Exploration, Inc. v. Patterson Services, Inc. and Cudd Pressure Control, Inc.

Fairways Offshore Exploration, Inc. appealed a trial court's judgment favoring Patterson Services, Inc. and Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. in a negligence and breach of contract dispute stemming from a sour natural gas well incident. Fairways challenged the sufficiency of Patterson's pleadings and expert testimony, damage awards, and asserted Patterson breached an express warranty and Cudd was negligent. Cudd filed a cross-issue regarding its equipment damages. The appellate court modified the judgment to reinstate Cudd's equipment damages, affirmed the judgment for Cudd on breach of contract, reversed Patterson's negligence claim, and reversed and remanded Patterson's breach of contract claim for a new trial.

Sour gas wellNegligenceBreach of contractExpress warrantySulfide-stress crackingNitrogen blanketT95 pipingEquipment rentalDamagesExpert testimony
References
11
Case No. 03-97-00410-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1997

Rockwell International, Inc. Weyerhaeuser Company Inc. And Diamond Shamrock, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

The Appellants, Rockwell International, Inc., Weyerhaeuser Company, Inc., and Diamond Shamrock, Inc., filed a motion to dismiss their appeal. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted this motion in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59(a)(1)(B). Consequently, the appeal originating from the District Court of Travis County was dismissed.

Motion to DismissAppellate ProcedureTexasWorkers' CompensationPer CuriamDistrict CourtCourt of AppealsJudicial District
References
1
Case No. 03-12-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2014

Raymond Bloch// SAVR Communications, Inc. And OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. v. SAVR Communications, Inc. OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. VanOwen Group Acquisition Company, Inc. Adam Crossno And John Crossno// Cross-Appellee, Raymond Bloch

This case originated from a dispute over severance pay in an employment agreement. Raymond Bloch sought $95,000 in severance pay from SAVR Communications, Inc. and OnAsset Intelligence, Inc. after his termination. The Texas Workforce Commission initially denied his claim, interpreting a 1998 rule under the Texas Payday Act. The district court reversed the TWC's decision, deeming the 1998 rule invalid, and awarded Bloch the $95,000. However, the district court dismissed Bloch's claim for attorney's fees due to res judicata, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeals, which noted the Payday Act does not provide for fee-shifting.

Employment agreementSeverance payTexas Payday ActTexas Workforce CommissionWage claimJudicial reviewStatutory constructionAdministrative rulesRes judicataBreach of contract
References
29
Case No. 01-18-00125-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2019

Vertex Services, LLC v. Oceanwide Houston, Inc., Oceanwide Texas, Inc., and Oceanwide America, Inc.

Vertex Services, LLC (Vertex) challenged the trial court’s rendition of no-evidence and traditional summary judgment in favor of Oceanwide Houston, Inc., Oceanwide Texas, Inc., and Oceanwide America, Inc. (collectively Oceanwide). Vertex had sued Oceanwide for tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective business relations, common-law misappropriation, and civil conspiracy. Vertex alleged Oceanwide "poached" foreign workers it had trained for its contract with TETRA Applied Technologies, LLC after Vertex lost contracts with its foreign labor supplier, Sea Cross Marine PTE, and its client, TETRA. The trial court granted Oceanwide's summary judgment motion on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, finding Vertex failed to present sufficient evidence for its claims.

Tortious Interference with ContractTortious Interference with Prospective Business RelationsCommon-Law MisappropriationCivil ConspiracySummary JudgmentNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentContract DisputeOffshore LaborStaffing IndustryUnfair Competition
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 13,858 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational