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. 526722
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2019

Matter of Persons v. Halmar Intl., LLC

Claimant Matthew Persons appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by exaggerating his condition and failing to disclose volunteer firefighter activities, leading to disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, as it was based on speculation, surmise, and mischaracterizations of claimant's activities and medical records. The court noted that claimant was forthcoming about his volunteer work and that video surveillance did not conclusively contradict his reported injuries. Consequently, the decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawFraudExaggerated ConditionVolunteer Firefighter ActivitiesWage Replacement BenefitsSubstantial EvidenceMedical TestimonyPsychiatric DisabilityVideo SurveillanceRemittal
References
6
Case No. 13-98-098-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2001

Marathon Corporation D/B/A Honda-Suzuki North v. Pitzner, John, a Mentally Incompetent Person, by and Through His Next Friend and Guardian, Steven Pitzner

John Pitzner, an HVAC repairman, suffered severe head trauma after falling from the roof of Marathon Corporation d/b/a Honda-Suzuki North while working on an air conditioning unit. Pitzner's guardian, Steven Pitzner, filed a personal injury lawsuit, alleging premises liability and negligence due to unsafe conditions, including units placed too close together, near the roof edge, an improperly placed gas line, and lack of a disconnect switch. A jury found Marathon 100% liable and awarded substantial damages. On appeal, Marathon challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence and disputed venue, evidentiary rulings, settlement credits, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, but modified it to apply a dollar-for-dollar settlement credit and recalculate prejudgment interest.

Premises LiabilityNegligencePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyVenue DisputeSettlement CreditsPrejudgment Interest CalculationDallas City Ordinances
References
80
Case No. M2009-02442-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Estate of David Holt Ralston, by John A. Ralston, Personal Representative v. Fred R. Hobbs

The personal representative of David Holt Ralston's estate filed an action to rescind twelve deeds executed by Fred R. Hobbs, the decedent's attorney-in-fact, without the decedent's knowledge and for no consideration. The properties were conveyed to Hobbs, his mother, and his daughter. The personal representative alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court rescinded the conveyances for properties still owned by Hobbs and awarded monetary damages for properties transferred to innocent third parties. On appeal, Hobbs challenged the personal representative's standing, statute of limitations, the finding of fiduciary duty breach, and damage calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on all grounds, finding the personal representative had standing, the action was timely filed, and Hobbs breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized gifts not in line with the principal's gifting history.

Fiduciary DutyPower of AttorneyReal Property ConversionStatute of LimitationsDeed RescissionMonetary DamagesAppellate ReviewEstate LawUndue InfluenceAttorney-in-Fact Breach
References
32
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. 03-17-00534-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2018

Denise Stroup, as Legal Guardian of D. L. S., an Incapacitated Person v. MRM Management, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a personal injury car-crash case involving an incapacitated person, Douglas Lee Stroup (Appellant). Appellant sued Penny Harrington Taylor for negligence and MRM Management, Inc. (Appellee) for vicarious liability, alleging Taylor, a licensed real estate salesperson, was acting for MRM. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was granted, asserting Taylor was an independent contractor, thus negating vicarious liability. Appellant argues that the independent contractor agreement is void under the Texas Occupation Code, which assigns liability to brokers for their salespersons' tortious conduct. Furthermore, Appellant contends that MRM should be estopped from relying on the agreement, and that factual disputes exist regarding Taylor's employment status, joint-enterprise liability, and statutory vicarious liability under the Texas Occupations Code. Appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment, arguing sufficient evidence was presented to raise genuine issues of material fact for trial.

Personal InjuryCar CrashVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorReal Estate AgentReal Estate BrokerTexas Occupations CodeRespondeat SuperiorJoint EnterpriseSummary Judgment Appeal
References
22
Case No. 05-20-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2022

Albert G. Hill, III v. Margaret Keliher, in Her Capacity as Personal Representative and Successor Independent of the Estate of Albert G. Hill, Jr., and Carol E. Irwin, in Her Capacity

This appeal concerns Albert G. Hill, III's (Hill III) claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting, which were dismissed by the probate court under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Hill III alleged his criminal indictment for false statements on a home equity loan was influenced by his father, Albert G. Hill, Jr., and others, acting with malice and without probable cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the TCPA applied to Hill III's claims. The court found Hill III failed to establish a prima facie case, specifically lacking clear and specific evidence that false information knowingly supplied by appellees was the "but for" cause of his prosecution or that appellees lacked probable cause. The dismissal of criminal charges on procedural grounds was not deemed evidence of unjustifiable prosecution or lack of probable cause.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAMalicious ProsecutionCivil ConspiracyAiding and AbettingAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingPrima Facie CaseProbable CauseFree Speech
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwartz v. M/V GULF SUPPLIER

Peter Schwartz, a seismic gun mechanic, was recruited by Seistech Offshore to work in Texas and was subsequently injured in Ingleside, Texas, during the outfitting of a vessel. Schwartz filed an admiralty tort case against Seistech Offshore, Geo Marine Limited, and Petro-Tech Peruana, S.A., alleging negligence, unseaworthiness, and other claims. Seistech Offshore moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing insufficient contacts with Texas. The Court denied Seistech's motion, finding that specific jurisdiction existed because Seistech purposefully availed itself of conducting activities in Texas. The Court also concluded that requiring Seistech to litigate in Texas comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Additionally, the Court held that Seistech had waived its personal jurisdiction defense by asserting it in a dilatory manner on the eve of trial.

Personal JurisdictionAdmiralty LawTort LawNegligenceUnseaworthinessSafe Place to WorkLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActGross NegligenceMotion to DismissDue Process
References
17
Case No. 03-94-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 1996

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation v. Barbara Wasiak Tyler Turner Boulo, as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Stanley Wasiak, James Edwin Wingate, Sr. and Jean Wingate Homer Clifton Brownlee, Sr. and Alma Brownlee And Martha Barnes, Individually

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation appealed a trial-court judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages to several appellees. The appellees, including Barbara Wasiak and other individuals, suffered wrongful death, personal injury, and loss of consortium due to exposure to "Kaylo," an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Owens-Corning. The case was tried under Alabama substantive law where the asbestos exposures occurred. Owens-Corning raised eleven points of error, challenging the exclusion of testimony regarding its financial condition, arguing that repetitive punitive damage awards violated due process, and contesting certain jury instructions. The appellate court found no error in the trial court's rulings and affirmed the judgment, concluding that the punitive damages were reasonable and consistent with legal objectives.

asbestos litigationproduct liabilitypunitive damagesmass tortdue process challengeAlabama lawTexas appellate procedurejury instructionswrongful deathpersonal injury
References
59
Case No. No. 02-20-00387-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2021

Michele McKenzie Alford-Shaw, as Independent of the Estate of Robin Dale Shaw v. Judy Nicholson, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Misty Nicholson, and as Guardian and Next Friend of LBN, a Minor Dominic Riola and Karla Riola

Michele McKenzie Alford-Shaw, acting as the independent executrix for her deceased husband Robin Dale Shaw's estate, was named as a defendant in a negligence suit following a fatal plane crash in Texas. Shaw, a nonresident, filed a special appearance arguing that the estate administration was informally closed, thereby terminating her duties as executor and removing the basis for personal jurisdiction in Texas. The trial court denied her special appearance. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the independent administration was not informally closed because there was no evidence that the estate's assets had been distributed. Consequently, Shaw's actions in the Texas probate court provided the requisite minimum contacts for specific personal jurisdiction, and the exercise of such jurisdiction did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceIndependent ExecutorEstate AdministrationMinimum ContactsDue ProcessFair Play and Substantial JusticeTexas Long-Arm StatutePlane CrashNegligence
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Dallas

This case concerns the constitutionality of various city ordinances enacted and enforced in Dallas, allegedly to remove homeless persons from public view. The plaintiffs, a class of homeless persons, sued the City of Dallas, the Dallas Police Department, and members of the Dallas City Council, challenging ordinances such as one prohibiting sleeping in public and the proposed eviction of a homeless encampment. Business and homeowners associations (Movants) sought to intervene, citing adverse economic impact and public safety risks. The Court denied intervention as of right, finding that the Movants' economic interest was too broad and not a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest under Rule 24(a). Permissive intervention was also denied, as their interests were coextensive with the defendants' and their participation would increase costs and delay. However, Movants were granted leave to appear as amici for the purpose of filing briefs related to the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs.

Intervention of RightPermissive InterventionHomelessnessCity OrdinancesConstitutional LawRule 24, Fed.R.Civ.P.Economic InterestPublic SafetyAmici CuriaeInjunctive Relief
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 10,945 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