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 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. 2-09-265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. v. Shelby Jackson

Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. appealed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. The appellants contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish DTPA violations, economic damages, an unconscionable act by Norris, mental anguish damages, and entitlement to treble damages or attorney's fees. The trial court found that Avery violated the DTPA by misrepresenting rights and failing to disclose information, causing $500 in economic damages, which were trebled. It also found Norris committed an unconscionable act intentionally, causing $2,500 in mental anguish damages, also trebled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all findings.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActEconomic DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesContract ModificationConsumer ProtectionTexas Law
References
46
Case No. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
Case No. E2018-02032-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2020

In Re C.L.

C.A. filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of H.L. (mother) and R.L. (father) concerning their two children, C.L. and A.L. The trial court terminated parental rights on grounds of abandonment and persistent conditions, also finding termination to be in the children's best interest. The appellate court vacated the finding of abandonment by willful failure to support for both parents. However, the court affirmed the termination of parental rights based on persistent conditions and the children's best interest, remanding the case for enforcement.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectPersistent ConditionsBest Interest of ChildAlcohol AbuseFinancial InstabilityParenting ClassesPsychological EvaluationChild Support EnforcementAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. 05-18-00564-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC v. Ralph Carrington D/B/A Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat , LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, Turpin and Turpin, Inc.

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC appealed the trial court's summary judgments in favor of Ralph Carrington d/b/a Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, and Turpin and Turpin, Inc. Regency argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Regency had no evidence of damages because its insurance carrier paid the underlying personal injury settlement and defense costs. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the collateral source rule does not apply to Regency under the facts of this case because Regency made no payments and received no payments from any other party. Furthermore, Regency's insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, failed to properly assert its subrogation rights or intervene in the lawsuit.

Summary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleInsurance CoverageSubrogation RightsBreach of ContractNegligenceIndemnityAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. E2017-00070-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

In Re Alyssa W.

This case involves an appeal concerning the termination of parental rights of Edwin B. (Father) to three of his children, initiated by the Department of Children’s Services (DCS). The Circuit Court initially terminated Father's rights on grounds including substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, persistence of conditions, and severe child abuse. The Court of Appeals reversed the ground of persistence of conditions but affirmed the findings of substantial noncompliance and severe child abuse. The appellate court also upheld the determination that terminating Father's rights serves the children's best interest, citing his failure to protect them from the Mother's drug use and lack of lasting changes in his conduct.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseDependent NeglectSubstantial NoncompliancePermanency PlanDrug ExposureHearsay EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionChain of CustodyBest Interest of Child
References
35
Case No. W2017-00068-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2017

In Re Miracle M.

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee reviewed a termination of parental rights case involving Father Jeremiah M. and his two minor children, Miracle M. and Jerenikkia M., originally heard in Shelby County Juvenile Court. The trial court had terminated Father's parental rights on grounds of abandonment by willful failure to support, willful failure to visit, and persistence of conditions. The appellate court reversed the ground of persistence of conditions, determining it was inapplicable because the children were not removed from Father's home. However, the court affirmed the termination based on Father's willful failure to support and visit the children and also upheld the trial court's finding that termination was in the children's best interests.

Parental Rights TerminationAbandonmentChild SupportVisitation RightsWillful NeglectBest Interest of ChildJuvenile LawAppellate ReviewChild CustodyTennessee Law
References
18
Case No. E2017-00830-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2018

In Re Kandace D.

The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed in part and reversed in part a lower court's decision to terminate a father's parental rights to his minor child, Kandace D. The trial court had found three grounds for termination: abandonment by an incarcerated parent due to wanton disregard for the child's welfare, incarceration with a child under eight and a ten-year sentence, and persistence of conditions leading to the child's removal. The appellate court upheld the first two grounds and the determination that termination was in the child's best interest but reversed the "persistence of conditions" ground, finding the child was not removed from the father's home by the Department of Children’s Services. The court also declined to address the father's constitutional challenge to one of the statutes.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentIncarcerated ParentBest Interest of ChildChild NeglectDependency and NeglectAppellate ReviewConstitutional LawEvidence AdmissibilityClear and Convincing Evidence
References
34
Case No. E2015-02265-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2016

In re Dustin L.

This case concerns the termination of parental rights for Tonya F. (Mother) and Joshua F. (Father) regarding their six minor children. The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) initiated the petition, citing failure to provide a suitable home, substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, and persistent unsafe conditions. The trial court granted the termination. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the 'failure to provide a suitable home' ground due to a concession by DCS. However, the court affirmed the termination based on the persistence of conditions leading to the children's removal and the parents' substantial noncompliance with permanency plans, concluding that termination was in the children's best interest. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate judgment.

Termination of Parental RightsChild NeglectPermanency PlanSubstantial NoncompliancePersistence of ConditionsBest Interest of ChildAppellate ReviewFoster CareParental RightsJuvenile Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tennessee Department of Human Services v. Riley

Tommy Lee and Peggy Sue Riley appealed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Obion County, which terminated their parental rights to their two minor children. The Tennessee Department of Human Services (TDHS) initiated the action due to persistent neglectful living conditions and the parents' limited mental capacities. The Circuit Court's decision was based on findings that termination was in the children's best interest, the conditions leading to removal persisted, and there was little likelihood of the parents remedying them. The appellate court reviewed TDHS's adherence to foster care procedures, provision of rehabilitative services, and visitation arrangements, ultimately affirming the trial court's decision to terminate parental rights, citing the children's physical safety and psychological maturation.

parental rights terminationchild neglectfoster caremental retardationfamily reunification effortschild welfaredependent and neglected childrenjuvenile court appealclear and convincing evidencebest interest of the child
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,370 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