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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1993

Republic Insurance Co. v. Davis

Justice Gammage concurs with parts I, II, III-A, most of III-B, and IV of the majority opinion, acknowledging the need for Republic to object to a special master's report, the applicability of the 'offensive use' exception to attorney-client privilege, and the scope of party communications privilege. However, he dissents from the majority's imposition of stricter factors for offensive-use waiver compared to federal standards. He strongly disagrees with the majority's interpretation of a Declaratory Judgment Act counterclaim as not seeking 'affirmative relief,' arguing that such actions can indeed constitute 'offensive use' under the *Ginsberg* doctrine, particularly when used to preempt liability. Gammage concludes that the attorney-client privilege should be waived for certain documents based on offensive use and would have denied the petition for writ of mandamus in its entirety. Justice Doggett joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.

Attorney-client privilegeDeclaratory Judgment ActOffensive use doctrineWaiver of privilegeWrit of mandamusConcurring opinionDissenting opinionTexas lawProcedural lawAppellate review
References
16
Case No. 96-CR-2659; 96-CR-2660
Regular Panel Decision

State v. McFall

This case addresses whether Texas Penal Code Section 32.03, an aggregation provision, can be used to prosecute individuals for fraudulently receiving workers' compensation benefits after the primary statute, Section 32.51, was repealed. John P. McFall was indicted under Section 32.51 for conduct occurring both before and after its repeal. The State argued that Section 32.03 allowed aggregation of incidents as a continuing course of conduct, making the pre-repeal conduct an 'element' that permitted prosecution under the old law. The court held that Section 32.03 is an aggregation provision for determining the grade of an offense, not a standalone offense, and therefore cannot be used to prosecute conduct that ceased to be an offense after the repeal of Section 32.51. Consequently, the trial court's decision to quash the indictments was affirmed, and the State's appeal was overruled.

Workers' Compensation FraudStatutory InterpretationRepealed StatuteAggregation ProvisionIndictmentMotion to QuashTexas Penal CodeContinuing Course of ConductElements of OffenseAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2012

Frigault v. Town of Richfield Planning Board

Petitioners, local citizens and property owners, challenged the Town of Richfield Planning Board's grant of a special use permit to Monticello Hills Wind, LLC for a six-wind turbine project. The challenge, a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, alleged violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Open Meetings Law, Town Law, and local ordinances. The Supreme Court annulled the negative declaration and special use permit due to Open Meetings Law and Town Law violations, though it upheld the SEQRA review. On cross-appeals, the higher court reinstated the negative declaration, finding the Board's SEQRA compliance sufficient and any Open Meetings Law violation did not warrant annulment. However, the special use permit's annulment was affirmed, as the Board failed to provide proper notice to the County Planning Department and lacked a rational explanation for compliance with the Town's special use permit ordinance.

Environmental Quality ReviewSpecial Use PermitWind TurbinesPlanning BoardOpen Meetings LawTown LawNegative DeclarationSEQRA ReviewJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, LLC v. Tveyes, Inc.

Fox News Network, LLC filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against TVEyes, Inc., a media-monitoring service. The district court previously upheld TVEyes' core service as fair use but reserved judgment on four specific features: archiving, e-mailing, downloading, and date-time search. In this renewed decision, the court ruled that TVEyes' archiving function is fair use. The e-mailing function can also be fair use, provided TVEyes implements adequate protective measures. However, the court found that the downloading and date-time search functions are not fair use, concluding they go beyond TVEyes' transformative purpose and pose undue risks to Fox News' copyrights and derivative businesses.

Copyright InfringementFair Use DefenseMedia MonitoringTransformative UseSummary JudgmentArchivingEmail SharingVideo DownloadingDate-Time SearchDigital Rights
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corp.

Superior Diving Company, Inc. sued Louisiana Worker’s Compensation Corporation (LWCC) over a denied worker's compensation claim and subsequent settlement. During discovery in that underlying case, LWCC sought to compel production of documents and deposition testimony, arguing a waiver of attorney-client and work product privileges under the offensive-use doctrine. The trial court, presided over by Judge Wayne Bridewell, denied LWCC's second motion to compel after an in-camera review. LWCC then petitioned for a writ of mandamus, seeking to overturn Judge Bridewell's decision. The appellate court denied the mandamus, holding that LWCC failed to demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion or establish that the requested discovery was "outcome determinative" and the "only means" to obtain the evidence, thus not satisfying the criteria for a waiver of privilege.

MandamusDiscoveryAttorney-client privilegeWork product privilegeOffensive-use doctrineWaiver of privilegeAbuse of discretionAdequate remedy at lawAppellate procedureTrial court
References
13
Case No. 10-02-200-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2003

in Re Louisiana Workers' Compensation Corporation

Superior Diving Company, Inc. sued Louisiana Worker’s Compensation Corporation (LWCC) to recover settlement sums paid for an employee's injury claim, which LWCC had denied. LWCC filed a motion to compel Superior Diving to produce documents and allow deposition, arguing attorney-client and work product privileges were waived under the offensive-use doctrine. The trial court, presided over by Judge Wayne Bridewell, denied LWCC's second motion to compel after an in-camera review. LWCC then sought a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to grant its motion. The Court of Appeals denied LWCC's petition, finding LWCC failed to establish a clear abuse of discretion or that it lacked an adequate remedy at law, as it did not prove the documents were 'outcome determinative' or the 'only means' to obtain evidence.

Mandamus PetitionDiscovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegeOffensive Use DoctrineAbuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy at LawSettlement RecoveryWorkers' Compensation PolicyInsurance Coverage Denial
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Terranova v. Lehr Construction Co.

In 2009, Claimant sustained a right knee injury at work, leading to workers' compensation benefits and a 10% schedule loss of use award. Concurrently, Claimant settled a third-party action for $173,500. A dispute arose concerning the carrier's credit and the apportionment of litigation expenses from the third-party settlement, specifically whether Burns v Varriale or Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund applied to a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that Matter of Kelly controlled, denying Claimant ongoing payments for litigation expenses. The appellate court affirmed, clarifying that for schedule loss of use awards, future benefits are ascertainable, making Matter of Kelly applicable.

Schedule Loss of UseThird-Party SettlementWorkers’ Compensation BenefitsLitigation ExpensesCarrier CreditApportionment of Counsel FeesFuture BenefitsIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedist ReportCourt of Appeals Precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Grugan v. The Record

Claimant sustained a work-related injury to her left hand in 2007, leading to a dispute over whether she should receive a permanent partial disability classification or a schedule loss of use award. The Workers’ Compensation Board ultimately issued a 15% schedule loss of use award, which the claimant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that substantial evidence supported the determination. The court noted that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement and her condition was stable, factors supporting a schedule loss of use award. Conflicting medical opinions from the treating orthopedist and an independent medical examiner were resolved by the Board within its discretion.

Schedule Loss of UsePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationTreating PhysicianAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionMaximum Medical ImprovementConflicting Medical Opinions
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Purdy v. Kreisberg

Petitioner Purdy, a Greenburgh police officer, was dismissed for violating departmental rules by using his official power to campaign against Town Supervisor Anthony Veteran. The Board of Police Commissioners found him guilty of using his position to influence a political election. The Appellate Division annulled the Board's decision, but this court reversed the Appellate Division's ruling, reinstating Purdy's dismissal. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's findings and upheld the constitutionality of the departmental rule prohibiting police officers from using their authority in partisan politics, stating that dismissal was not a disproportionate penalty given the calculated nature of the offense.

Police misconductpolitical activityfreedom of speechadministrative lawjudicial reviewpublic employee dismissalCPLR Article 78substantial evidenceconstitutional lawdepartmental regulations
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glass v. City of Chattanooga

The case concerns a motor vehicle accident where Queen Ann Glass, a school bus driver for the City of Chattanooga, was injured by a fellow employee's negligence. As the City of Chattanooga is exempt from workers' compensation laws, the dispute centered on the applicability of the common law fellow servant doctrine. The trial court initially awarded damages to Glass, but the Court of Appeals reversed, applying the doctrine. The Supreme Court of Tennessee ultimately reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, finding the fellow servant doctrine to be an unjust and outdated rule that no longer serves a useful purpose in contemporary jurisprudence, and reinstated the trial court's judgment for the plaintiff.

Fellow Servant DoctrineRespondeat SuperiorCommon Law TortEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExemptionJudicial PrecedentNegligenceMotor Vehicle AccidentBus DriverTennessee Supreme Court
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 3,918 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