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

In Re United States Lines, Inc.

The United States Lines, Inc. and its Reorganization Trust (Debtors) moved to deny a claim for pre- and post-judgment interest filed by the Public Administrator of the County of New York, Administrator of the Estate of Alfredo Valverde (Claimant). The Claimant's original wrongful death action against U.S.L. resulted in a state court judgment after the Debtors filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Cornelius Blackshear, found that the doctrines of full faith and credit, res judicata, and collateral estoppel were inapplicable, asserting its exclusive jurisdiction over the claims allowance process in bankruptcy. Applying Section 502(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court disallowed all post-petition interest, whether pre- or post-judgment, classifying it as unmatured interest. However, the court allowed the portion of the claim representing pre-petition, pre-judgment interest, clarifying that the date of judgment entry does not determine whether interest is 'unmatured' as of the petition date. Lastly, the court rejected the argument that the existence of indemnity insurance from the UK Club altered the allowability of the interest claim against the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawInterest on ClaimsPostpetition InterestPrepetition InterestUnmatured InterestChapter 11 ReorganizationClaims AllowanceRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAutomatic Stay
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1996

McDill v. VSSI Tokyo, Inc.

This case concerns an order issued by District Judge Kent regarding the final judgment in an action brought by Richard D. McDill against VSSI Tokyo, Inc. under the Longshore & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Following a jury verdict awarding the plaintiff $981,421, the court addressed disputed issues of court costs and pre-judgment interest. The court clarified the procedure for assessing costs, mandating a separate bill of costs after judgment entry. Crucially, the order determined that pre-judgment interest is permissible for past damages but not future damages in maritime cases, leading to a judicial allocation of the jury's award into past and future components for pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earning capacity. Additionally, the court affirmed the right of the intervenor, CIGNA Insurance Company of Texas, to recover pre-judgment interest on its compensation lien.

Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPre-judgment InterestCourt CostsFuture DamagesPast DamagesMaritime LawFifth CircuitJury VerdictIntervenorCIGNA Insurance
References
9
Case No. 01-02-00807-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2006

Texas Mutual Insurance Co. F/K/A/ Texas Workers' Compansation Ins. Fund v. Ray Ferguson Interest, Inc., RFI Brazos Paving Co., Inc.

Texas Mutual Insurance Company (the Fund) appealed a judgment from a jury verdict in favor of Ray Ferguson Interests, Inc. (RFI), awarding RFI over $2.2 million in actual damages, $3.5 million in statutory damages for Insurance Code violations, and attorney's fees. The dispute arose from the Fund's investigation into RFI's workers' compensation premiums, alleging premium fraud related to RFI's subcontractor, Brazos. RFI counter-sued, alleging breach of contract and violations of the Insurance Code for the Fund's actions. The appellate court found errors in the trial court's denial of pre-judgment interest to the Fund and in the jury's damage awards for 'lost time' due to litigation and for 'loss of value' or 'credit reputation' resulting from statements protected by judicial immunity or lacking direct causation to the Fund's alleged contract breaches or deceptive acts. Consequently, the court reversed RFI's recovery, affirmed parts of the judgment, and remanded the case with instructions, including entering a take-nothing judgment on RFI's claims.

Workers' CompensationInsurance FraudBreach of ContractUnfair Insurance PracticesTexas Insurance CodeJudicial ImmunityDamagesAttorney's FeesPre-judgment InterestCausation
References
26
Case No. 01A01-9506-CV-00255
Regular Panel Decision

Vooys v. Turner

The case concerns an appeal by the Husband challenging the trial court's award of post-judgment interest to the Wife on $185,000. These funds were deposited by the Husband with the court clerk as the purchase price for the marital residence, which had been awarded to the Wife. During the initial appeal of the divorce decree, Husband appealed the award of the house and successfully moved to stay execution of the judgment without bond, requesting the funds be placed in an interest-bearing account. After the initial judgment was affirmed, Wife sought post-judgment interest. The trial court granted it, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The appellate court held that a party depositing funds into court does not avoid statutory post-judgment interest unless the payment is an unconditional satisfaction of the judgment, especially when the depositor appeals and obtains a stay, thus depriving the other party of the funds' use.

Post-judgment interestDivorceAppellate reviewFunds deposited in courtStay of executionMarital propertyAlimony in solidoStatutory interpretationRule 67.03Rule 67.04
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Highlands Insurance Co. v. Martinez

The Highland Insurance Company appealed a trial court's judgment awarding a claimant additional medical expenses for nursing services, pre-judgment interest, and attorney fees, for a period extending beyond a successive Industrial Accident Board (IAB) award. Highland challenged the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction to award medical expenses accruing after the date of the successive IAB award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's jurisdiction on this point, referencing prior case law that allows for the recovery of medical expenses during the period between the Board's order and the trial court's judgment, even for successive claims. Highland's points of error regarding the definition and instructions on 'nursing care' were not preserved for appellate review due to an incomplete record. However, the appellate court sustained Highland's objection to the award of 4% pre-judgment interest on medical expenses, clarifying that Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306a limits such interest to past due weekly compensation installments, not medical expenses. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reformed to remove the pre-judgment interest award, and as reformed, the judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesNursing ServicesPre-judgment InterestAppellate JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationIndustrial Accident BoardTexas LawRes JudicataTrial Court Review
References
8
Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of E.A.K.

Mustofa K Khandokar appealed the termination of his parental rights to his minor child, E.A.K., after a jury found grounds for termination and that it was in the child's best interest. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in admitting hearsay documents, including child outcry statements, without proper foundation or reliability. These evidentiary errors were deemed harmful, likely leading to an improper judgment. Despite finding legally sufficient evidence on one ground for termination and the child's best interest based on properly admitted evidence, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Sexual Abuse AllegationsHearsay EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionPublic Records ExceptionChild Outcry StatementsEvidentiary ErrorHarmless Error AnalysisLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of Child
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kersh & Sons, Inc. v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) sued Kersh & Sons, Inc., and its individual owners for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. The defendants appealed a judgment in favor of TEIA, contesting the individual liability of the owners and the award of pre-judgment interest. They argued the individual owners acted solely in their corporate capacity and that the claim was a special account, not an open account, therefore not qualifying for pre-judgment interest under the cited statute. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the individual defendants failed to properly deny their liability. The court also found sufficient evidence to support TEIA's assertion that the claim was indeed an open account, justifying the pre-judgment interest.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePremium DisputeOpen AccountPre-judgment InterestCorporate LiabilityIndividual LiabilityVerified DenialAppellate ReviewContract LawTexas Civil Procedure
References
4
Case No. 10-02-00349-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2004

Billy Glenn Elwood v. the Kroger Co.

Billy Glenn Elwood sued his former employer, The Kroger Co., for injuries he sustained while working as a courtesy clerk. A jury found Kroger negligent and awarded damages, but the trial court reduced the award due to Elwood's comparative negligence. Both parties appealed various aspects of the trial court's judgment. The Tenth Court of Appeals overruled Kroger's legal and factual sufficiency challenges regarding negligence and damages. It sustained Elwood's issues concerning comparative negligence and pre-judgment interest, concluding that the trial court erred in reducing damages and calculating interest. The judgment was reformed to award the full amount of damages and correct pre-judgment interest, and as reformed, the judgment was affirmed.

Employer NegligenceWorkplace InjuryTexas Court of AppealsJury VerdictComparative NegligencePre-judgment InterestDamages AwardLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyWorkers' Compensation Non-Subscriber
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of E.M. and J.M., Children

Jessica M. and Daniel M. appealed the judgment terminating their parental rights for children E.M. and J.M. Jessica raised issues regarding the admissibility of E.M.'s therapist statements, the legal and factual sufficiency of evidence for predicate grounds and best interest, and errors in jury instructions. Daniel challenged the admissibility of E.M.'s statements and the sufficiency of evidence for best interest. The court found E.M.'s statements, detailing abuse and neglect, to be admissible and reliable. Parental rights were terminated based on findings of endangerment through conditions, conduct, and failure to comply with court orders. Evidence included a domestic disturbance, K2 drug use allegations, positive drug tests, parental instability, and E.M.'s expressed fear. The court affirmed the jury's findings against Jessica. Daniel's sufficiency complaints were not preserved, and jury charge errors were overruled. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Abuse and NeglectHearsay EvidenceChild Therapist TestimonyDomestic ViolenceDrug AbuseSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of the ChildJury InstructionsAppellate Procedure
References
56
Showing 1-10 of 19,648 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