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

Rosenberg Development Corp. v. Imperial Performing Arts, Inc.

Imperial Performing Arts, Inc. (IPA) sued Rosenberg Development Corporation (RDC) for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. RDC filed a plea to the jurisdiction, claiming governmental immunity from suit. The trial court partially granted and partially denied RDC's plea. On interlocutory appeal, RDC challenged the denial of its plea. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's partial denial, holding that economic development corporations like RDC generally do not possess common law governmental immunity from suit for contract claims. The court further clarified that the statutory immunity granted to Type B corporations under Local Government Code § 505.106 is limited to tort claims and immunity from liability for damages, neither of which supported RDC's plea for immunity from suit in this contract dispute.

Governmental ImmunityEconomic Development CorporationPlea to JurisdictionBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Local Government CodeGovernmental FunctionsPolitical SubdivisionsCommon Law ImmunityStatutory Immunity
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zimmer v. Chemung County Performing Arts, Inc.

This case is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Tioga County, which granted defendants' motions to set aside a $350,000 jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and ordered a new trial. The trial court's decision to grant a new trial was affirmed by the appellate court, acknowledging the trial court's discretion in evaluating errors. The basis for setting aside the verdict included the plaintiff's attorney's improper introduction of new medical evidence (CAT scan and X-rays) shortly before trial, without proper notice, and the subsequent testimony of Dr. Leonard J. Barron based on this evidence. Additionally, plaintiff's attorney engaged in prejudicial tactics during summation, attacking the reliability of defendants' medical expert and injecting speculative arguments about inflation and improper references to workers' compensation reimbursement. These combined errors led the trial court, and subsequently the appellate court, to conclude that defendants were denied a fair trial, thus justifying a new trial on damages.

Appeal ProcedureNew TrialEvidentiary RulingsDiscovery AbuseMedical Expert TestimonyJury Verdict Set AsideAttorney MisconductPrejudicial ErrorsDamages DeterminationFair Trial
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. 05-17-01187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Linda Douglas v. Taylor Sims and Dallas Performance, LLC.

This case involves an appeal from a jury trial where Dallas Performance, LLC (DP) and Taylor Sims prevailed against Linda Douglas. Linda had sued DP for conversion, wrongful detention of her vehicle, and other claims after DP retained her car due to unpaid repair and storage fees. The jury found in favor of DP and Sims, awarding them $9,000.00 for breach of contract regarding storage fees and $3,200.00 in quantum meruit for motor work. The appellees, DP and Sims, argue that the trial court's judgment, which was entered in accordance with the jury's findings, should be affirmed. They assert their right to a possessory lien on the vehicle and that Linda agreed to the storage fee policy and additional work performed on her car.

Motor Vehicle RepairPossessory LienStorage FeesQuantum MeruitBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesConversionWrongful DetainerDallas PerformanceLinda Douglas
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd.

Ronald Borsack (also known as Ron Bell) filed a breach of contract action against Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd., Sevenarts, Ltd., Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, LLC, and David Rogath. The defendants removed the case from New York Supreme Court to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction and later jurisdiction under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards. Borsack claimed an oral agreement for a "finders fee" of five Erte artist proofs, which he alleged was memorialized in an addendum to a license agreement between Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts. The defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration as per the license agreement, while Borsack cross-moved to remand the case to state court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that diversity jurisdiction was absent as Borsack was domiciled in New York, the same as one of the defendants. However, the court determined it had federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act's Chapter 2, as the dispute involved an international commercial arbitration agreement. The court further concluded that Borsack, as an intended third-party beneficiary of the License Agreement and Addendum, was bound by its arbitration clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for a stay pending arbitration and denied Borsack's motion to remand.

Breach of ContractArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryConvention on Foreign Arbitral AwardsRemand MotionStay Pending ArbitrationContract Interpretation
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Performance Insurance Co. v. Frans

This case concerns an appeal by Performance Insurance Company, a workers' compensation carrier, against a trial court's judgment regarding the apportionment of a settlement. The carrier had paid death benefits to the survivors of Michael D. Frans and subsequently intervened in a lawsuit filed by the beneficiaries against third-party tortfeasors. The trial court approved a settlement of $200,000 and apportioned the proceeds between Ms. Frans and her son, Michael Jr., prior to reimbursing the carrier's $104,404 lien. The carrier argued this apportionment improperly reduced its statutory subrogation recovery and credit. The appellate court found the trial court erred by not following the statutory sequence for payment, which dictates costs and attorney's fees first, then carrier reimbursement, and finally any excess to beneficiaries. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation LienSettlement ApportionmentDeath BenefitsThird-Party TortfeasorStatutory InterpretationDouble RecoveryReimbursementMedical MalpracticeBeneficiary Claims
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graphic Arts Mutual Insurance v. Bakers Mutual Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Graphic Arts Mutual, an automobile liability insurer, and Bakers Mutual, a workers' compensation carrier, over which policy covers an employer's derivative liability in a third-party personal injury action. An employee of Chimes Cake Co. was injured by a co-employee's negligence, leading to a third-party claim against the employer under the Dole-Dow doctrine. Graphic disclaimed responsibility, citing policy exclusions for employee bodily injury and workers' compensation obligations. The court affirmed that Graphic's automobile policy covered the employer's vicarious liability to a third-party tort-feasor, as this obligation did not fall within the stated exclusions. The decision emphasizes a functional analysis of separate insurance lines, concluding that automobile liability should cover obligations arising from vehicle operation.

Insurance disputeAutomobile liabilityWorkers' compensationThird-party actionDeclaratory judgmentEmployer's liabilityVicarious liabilityDole-Dow doctrinePolicy exclusionsCo-employee negligence
References
4
Case No. 2018-06-1969
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2019

Kent, Robert v. Delatorre Art Design, Inc.

The claimant, Robert Kent, an artisan, sustained a left shoulder injury while working at the Nashville Zoo. He sought workers' compensation benefits from Delatorre Art Design, Inc., which hired him, alleging he was an employee. Delatorre contended Kent was an independent contractor and therefore not entitled to benefits. The trial court sided with Delatorre, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Board after considering statutory factors for determining employment status. The Board concluded that the preponderance of the evidence supported the finding that Kent was unlikely to establish an employer-employee relationship at trial, and thus affirmed the denial of benefits.

Independent contractoremployer-employee relationshipworkers' compensation benefitsartisan injuryoccupational injurytemporary workstatutory factorsright to controlmethod of paymentNashville Zoo
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03334
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

Loaiza v. Museum of Arts & Design

Plaintiff, a commercial window washer, fell while performing work on the exterior of a building and subsequently moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Supreme Court initially denied his motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed the lower court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division found that the plaintiff made a prima facie showing that his accident was proximately caused by a failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments of comparative negligence and recalcitrant worker defense, stating that the plaintiff's omission of a specific safety knot was at most comparative negligence and not a sole proximate cause, and no evidence supported intentional disregard of safety instructions.

Window Washing AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Fall ProtectionSafety DevicesSummary JudgmentComparative NegligenceRecalcitrant Worker DefenseAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentNew York Appellate Division
References
3
Case No. 650775/2013, 158002/2012
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2013

Saska v. Metropolitan Museum of Art

This opinion addresses two consolidated actions challenging the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s "pay what you wish" admissions policy. Plaintiffs alleged violations of General Business Law § 349, a 1893 statute, and breach of a 1878 lease with the City of New York, asserting a right to free admission. Justice Kornreich granted the Museum’s motion to dismiss. The court found no private right of action under the 1893 appropriations act and determined that plaintiffs, as purported third-party beneficiaries of the lease, had no greater rights than the City, which had tacitly and explicitly approved the admission policy for over 40 years. The decision underscored that compelling a de minimis payment constituted de facto free access and that plaintiffs' lawsuit would ultimately undermine the Museum’s ability to fund its public access and operations.

Museum Admission PolicyPay What You WishGeneral Business Law § 349Lease AgreementThird-Party BeneficiaryPrivate Right of ActionAppropriations StatuteInjunctive ReliefMotion to DismissMetropolitan Museum of Art
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 2,084 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