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

Munson Hardisty, LLC v. Legacy Pointe Apartments, LLC

This civil action involves a dispute over the construction of Legacy Pointe Apartments in Knox County, Tennessee. Plaintiff, the general contractor, alleges that defendant, a Tennessee limited liability company, unilaterally modified project specifications, resulting in unpaid extra work. Plaintiff claims defendant made fraudulent representations to HUD and lenders, transferred funds to an affiliate, and then colluded to assert subcontractor claims against plaintiff's Payment Bond. Plaintiff filed suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act (FCA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), and several state law claims. The Court denied defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding plaintiff sufficiently pled facts for all claims to proceed.

False Claims ActRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActBreach of ContractFraudRetaliationStatute of LimitationsMotion for Judgment on PleadingsCivil ProcedureConstruction ContractHousing and Urban Development
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lacorte v. Hudacs

Plaintiffs Kenneth P. Lacorte and Lacorte Electrical Construction previously admitted to violating New York State Labor Laws by underpaying employees on public works projects, later pleading guilty to grand larceny. They filed a § 1983 complaint, alleging various defendants conspired to deprive them of due process by initiating unfounded investigations, distributing defamatory information, and drafting legislation to declare them "non-responsible" bidders, thus disqualifying them from public works contracts. Earlier motions to dismiss by state and union defendants were granted. This decision addresses motions by the Albany County defendants (County of Albany, Michael Polovina, Richard Meyers, and Frank Commisso) to dismiss the complaint or for judgment on the pleadings. The Court found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a cause of action for violation of due process rights as low bidders on an Albany County Airport public works contract and denied dismissal of conspiracy allegations. Defamation allegations were also found sufficiently pleaded as an invasion of the Due Process liberty interest in reputation. Finally, the Court denied legislative immunity to defendants Meyer and Commisso, characterizing their actions in awarding the contract as administrative. Therefore, all motions by the Albany defendants were denied.

Civil RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Public Works ContractsLow BidderDefamationLiberty InterestLegislative ImmunityAdministrative ActConspiracy
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Service Lloyds Insurance Co. v. Slay

James L. Slay, a mechanic, suffered a neck and upper back injury in 1985 while working for Frontier Ford Sales, Inc., leading to a workers' compensation claim. A jury awarded him total and permanent benefits, including lifetime lump-sum payments and prejudgment interest on medical expenses. The Appellant, likely the workers' compensation insurer, challenged this award on four points of error: lump-sum benefits, prejudgment interest, sufficiency of pleadings, and evidentiary support for lifetime benefits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's discretion to award lump-sum and lifetime benefits, finding sufficient evidence for total loss of use of both legs and adequate pleadings. However, it reversed the award of prejudgment interest on past due medical expenses, reforming the judgment accordingly.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTotal Permanent IncapacityLump Sum SettlementAppellate Court DecisionSpinal Cord InjuryLeg ParalysisMedical Expert TestimonyPleading SufficiencyPrejudgment InterestStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kleehammer v. Monroe County

This case involves an employment sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Kleehammer against Monroe County and Sheriff O'Flynn. Kleehammer alleges hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The hostile environment claim stemmed from a single incident involving a female visitor and a male inmate, and subsequent lewd comments by co-workers. Kleehammer also claimed retaliation for complaining about the hostile environment and for alleged denial of "Z time" leave. The Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the hostile environment and Equal Protection/Fourth Amendment claims due to insufficient pleading and lack of employer liability for co-worker conduct, but allowed the retaliation claims (Third and Fourth causes of action) to proceed. The Court cautioned Plaintiff's counsel regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for good faith pleading.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissJudgment on the PleadingsTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Human Rights LawSection 1983 ClaimPleading StandardsBell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
References
46
Case No. 14-04-01006-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2005

Emilio Rodriguez, Individually and as Next Friend of Minors, Alejandro Rodriguez, Mario Rodriguez, Amy Rodriguez, Alyssa Rodriguez, Adam Rodriguez and Amadee Rodriguez v. Sinclair Contractors, Inc.

Emilio Rodriguez, individually and as next friend of several minors, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Sinclair Contractors, Inc. Rodriguez, injured while working at Sinclair's facility, sued Sinclair for negligence. The trial court held that the lawsuit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. On appeal, Rodriguez contended that Sinclair's summary judgment motion was not supported by its pleadings because the affirmative defense of exclusive remedy was not specifically pleaded. The appellate court found that Rodriguez had sufficiently objected to this omission, rejecting Sinclair's arguments that the motion itself constituted a pleading or that Rodriguez waived his objection. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionPleading RequirementsAppellate ProcedureTexas LawNegligenceEmployment LawStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 12-21-00147-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2022

Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Willow Bend Center

The Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHS) appealed a temporary injunction granted to Willow Bend Center, a childcare facility facing license revocation due to alleged abuse and neglect. Willow Bend sought the injunction to continue operating during administrative appeals, which the trial court granted based on a finding of no health or safety risk to children. HHS argued the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Willow Bend failed to sufficiently plead facts to waive sovereign immunity. The appellate court agreed that Willow Bend's pleadings did not establish jurisdiction under the limited waiver in the Texas Human Resources Code § 42.072(e). Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case remanded to allow Willow Bend an opportunity to amend its pleadings to cure the jurisdictional defect.

Sovereign immunitytemporary injunctionchildcare licenseadministrative appealsjurisdictionpleading sufficiencywaiver of immunityhealth and safety riskTexas Human Resources Codeappellate review
References
17
Case No. 13-96-119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1997

Riojas, Delia v. Elsa State Bank and Mike Trippel

Delia Riojas appealed a summary judgment entered against her in favor of Elsa State Bank and Mike Trippel. Riojas raised four points of error, challenging the trial court's decision regarding pleading defects, remaining material fact issues, and the failure to address all her causes of action including wrongful discharge, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Riojas waived her complaint on pleading defects by not obtaining a written ruling. Furthermore, the court determined her wrongful discharge claim lacked evidence of illegal conduct or intolerable working conditions, and her defamation claim involved opinions protected by qualified privilege. Finally, the court concluded that Riojas did not adequately plead or demonstrate sufficiently outrageous conduct for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Summary JudgmentEmployment-at-WillWrongful DischargeConstructive DischargeDefamationLibelIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressQualified PrivilegeAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
69
Case No. 13-01-267-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

Texas Workers Compensation Insurance Facility v. Serafin De Leon

The Texas Workers Compensation Insurance Facility appealed a jury verdict that awarded Serafin de Leon lifetime income benefits (LIBS) due to a 1993 work-related injury resulting in total and permanent loss of both feet. The appellant raised seven issues, challenging the judgment's basis, pleading sufficiency, jury question formulation, and evidentiary sufficiency. De Leon sustained severe foot injuries from a fall, leading to multiple surgeries and chronic pain, rendering him unable to work. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that de Leon's claim was based on the 'loss of use of both feet' under Texas Labor Code section 408.161(b), and found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the verdict. The court also addressed the appellant's complaint about the judgment not specifying payment details, stating that the parties should be able to determine these or seek a remand.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsLoss of UseFoot InjuryJury Verdict AppealSufficiency of EvidenceJudicial ReviewTexas Labor CodeAbuse of DiscretionMedical Evaluation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 1994

Brooke v. Schlesinger

Peter Brooke filed a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for common law fraud against Daniel Stieglitz, Mark Sugel, and other defendants. Brooke alleged a scheme to defraud him at Net 30 Accessories, Inc., which he co-founded. The alleged fraudulent activities included invoicing fraud, concealment of financial information, and inducing Brooke to sell his interest in the company under false pretenses. Defendants Stieglitz and Sugel moved to dismiss the claims for failure to state a claim and insufficient pleading of fraud. The court granted Stieglitz's motion, dismissing the RICO and common law fraud claims against him due to inadequate pleading of predicate acts and lack of subject matter jurisdiction for the state claim. However, the court denied Sugel's motion, finding that Brooke sufficiently pleaded predicate acts, a pattern of racketeering activity, causation, and common law fraud against him. Plaintiff Brooke was granted leave to amend his complaint within 30 days.

RICO ActCivil ActionMotion to DismissMail FraudWire FraudFraudulent SchemeRacketeering ActivityPattern of RacketeeringProximate CauseRICO Conspiracy
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. St. Barnabas Nursing Home

Plaintiff Felicia Pickett Johnson, pro se, brought an action against her former employer, St. Barnabas Nursing Home, and co-worker, Ronald Granger, under Title VII, the ADA, and New York Human Rights Laws. Claims against Granger were dismissed without prejudice. St. Barnabas moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that Johnson's federal claims were time-barred because she failed to file within 90 days of receiving her EEOC right-to-sue letter. The court determined that Johnson's filing on February 7, 2008, was beyond the 90-day period, whether calculated from the presumptive receipt date of November 3, 2007, or her claimed receipt date of November 14, 2007 (or even November 8, 2008, based on a fax confirmation). Finding no extraordinary circumstances to warrant equitable tolling, the court dismissed the federal claims as time-barred and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Consequently, St. Barnabas's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Title VIIADAEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingRight-to-Sue LetterJudgment on the PleadingsSupplemental JurisdictionCivil Rights ActAmericans with Disabilities Act
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,821 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