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. E2019-00554-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2020

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This class action lawsuit involved Highlands Physicians, Inc. (HPI) alleging that Wellmont Health System breached an agreement and its fiduciary duties, leading to over $57 million in damages awarded by a jury. The trial court also awarded HPI over $5 million in attorney's fees, which Wellmont appealed. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in not submitting the attorney's fee issue to the jury, thus vacating that award and remanding for a jury determination. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in all other respects, including the jury's findings on breach of contract and intentional interference with business relationships. The court also affirmed the trial court's summary judgment rulings regarding contract interpretation and third-party beneficiaries, as well as the denial of prejudgment interest.

Class ActionBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyIntentional InterferenceContract InterpretationThird-Party BeneficiaryAttorney's FeesDamages AwardSummary Judgment ProcedureExpert Witness Testimony
References
91
Case No. 01-14-00767-CV
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This is a health care liability appeal where Shirley Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, individually and as representatives of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Nayla McKnight, challenge the trial court's decision to grant U.T. Physicians' plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The appellants allege that U.T. Physicians' negligence in treating Shana Lenoir’s twin pregnancy, specifically the administration of a medically unnecessary and contraindicated progesterone injection by Nurse Matthews, proximately caused her death. U.T. Physicians claimed sovereign immunity as a governmental unit. Appellants argue that U.T. Physicians is a private non-profit corporation and an independent contractor, not entitled to sovereign immunity, and that a waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act was sufficiently pled due to the use of tangible physical property.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental UnitIndependent ContractorTexas Tort Claims ActHealth Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNegligenceProgesterone InjectionTwin PregnancyWrongful Death
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Three applications were submitted to the court regarding an arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement. Employer Dalcro Corp. moved to stay arbitration and to vacate an arbitrator's award, while the Union moved to confirm the award. The dispute arose from an alleged oral modification of wage rates. Dalcro claimed the arbitration agreement was invalid, there was no arbitrable issue, and the National Labor Relations Board had pre-empted jurisdiction. The court denied Dalcro's application for a stay, finding that Dalcro had participated in the arbitration proceedings. However, the court granted Dalcro's application to vacate the arbitrator's award because the arbitrator failed to adjourn the hearing as mandated by Civil Practice Act § 1458 after being served with a motion for a stay. Consequently, the Union's application to confirm the award was denied, and a rehearing before the arbitrator was directed.

Arbitration AgreementCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardArbitration StayVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardDue ProcessJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
17
Case No. 23-0697
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and vacated a temporary injunction against Senate Bill 14, which prohibits certain medical treatments for minors related to gender transition. Parents of children with gender dysphoria, along with physicians and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, had challenged the law as unconstitutional, alleging infringements on parental rights, occupational freedom for physicians, and discrimination based on sex and transgender status. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a probable right to relief, asserting that parental rights are not absolute and the Legislature has constitutional authority to regulate medicine, especially regarding novel treatments for new conditions. The Court also found no unconstitutional discrimination, stating the law treats males and females equally in its prohibitions and that "transgender status" is not a protected class under the Texas Constitution.

Parental RightsMedical RegulationGender DysphoriaConstitutional LawDue Course of LawEqual ProtectionTransgender RightsMinors' Medical TreatmentLegislative AuthorityTexas Supreme Court
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Michael Rosenthal, a trustee and participant in four taxicab industry benefit funds, initiated an action against nineteen taxicab employers. He alleged that the employers violated a collective bargaining agreement by failing to make required contributions, inadequately reporting participants' eligibility loss, and fraudulently manipulating fund participant ratios, asserting claims under ERISA and New York State law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, challenging the court's subject matter jurisdiction and plaintiff's standing. The court found that it had subject matter jurisdiction under ERISA, deeming the collective bargaining agreement an ERISA "plan." However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendants due to the plaintiff's lack of standing. The court ruled that Rosenthal could not proceed as an individual trustee without the approval of his co-trustees, which would violate the Taft-Hartley Act's equal representation provisions, nor as a participant seeking to vindicate the fund's rights rather than his own personal benefits.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActStandingSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee Benefit PlansFiduciary DutyTrustee LitigationMultiemployer Plans
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The debtor, Southern Electronics Company, Inc., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and proposed to reject its collective bargaining agreement with the Communications Workers of America (CWA). The debtor argued that the seniority provisions of the agreement protected unproductive employees, contributing to financial losses. The court reviewed legal standards for rejecting such agreements, opting for a 'balancing of the equities' test. Despite concerns about the debtor's intransigence and lack of documentation for employee unproductivity, the court found the agreement burdensome due to potential arbitration costs and critical need for reorganization funds contingent on rejection. Ultimately, the court permitted the rejection of the agreement and confirmed the debtor's plan of reorganization, prioritizing the continuation of the business and the interests of current employees and unsecured creditors over the perpetuation of the collective bargaining agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementContract RejectionLabor LawDebtor in PossessionSeniority ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeReorganization PlanEquities Balancing Test
References
14
Case No. 14-14-00855-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2014

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves an appeal from a trial court judgment that awarded over $50 million in purported fraud and related damages, including exemplary damages, against the appellants. The appellants challenge the trial court's findings and conclusions as unsupported by legally or factually sufficient evidence. They argue that the gross damage awards are unitemized and include unsupported elements, hindering adequate appellate review. Appellants contend that the trial court's conclusion of perjury by one of the appellants unfairly influenced the case outcome. They seek a reversal of the judgment and a remand for a new trial on all issues of liability and damages, highlighting alleged errors such as the improper default judgment against one appellant and adverse inferences against another due to his absence from trial.

Breach of ContractFraudFiduciary DutyCivil ConspiracyAlter EgoDamagesExemplary DamagesAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentCorporate Liability
References
47
Case No. 533089
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2021

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Claimant, a patient services representative, sought to amend her workers' compensation claim to include left shoulder aggravation after a work-related injury to her right shoulder. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed this request, finding that claimant failed to provide sufficient credible medical evidence to establish a causal relationship between her employment and the left shoulder condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision. The court noted that the claimant's treating physician opined the left shoulder pathology was largely preexisting and unrelated to the work injury, and other medical opinions either lacked sufficient weight or were based on inaccurate information, providing no basis to disturb the Board's finding.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausationMedical EvidencePreexisting ConditionAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionClaim AmendmentPatient Services Representative
References
10
Case No. 2-07-174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2008

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Cairn K. Baker appealed a take-nothing summary judgment granted in favor of Cook Children’s Physician Network, which was based on the exclusivity provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Baker, a licensed vocational nurse, alleged mental trauma damages for assault and false imprisonment by Dr. Shannon Watts during a personnel action meeting. The Court of Appeals determined that Baker's claims, seeking mental trauma damages arising principally from a personnel action, are noncompensable under the Act, and thus the exclusivity provision does not bar them. Alternatively, even if not classified as mental trauma injuries, the claims for intentional torts are also not barred by the Act. Therefore, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusivity provisionSummary JudgmentMental anguish damagesAssaultFalse ImprisonmentIntentional tortsPersonnel actionNoncompensable injuryAppellate review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 6,540 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