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. NO. 12-08-00048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Dewayne Rogers Logging, Inc. v. Propac Industries, Ltd., East Texas MacHinery Rental, Inc. and Deere & Company, D/B/A John Deere Company

Dewayne Rogers Logging, Inc. (Rogers Logging) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Propac Industries, Ltd., East Texas Machinery Rental, Inc., and Deere & Company (Appellees). The case stemmed from the destruction of a delimber machine by fire. Rogers Logging, as subrogee for Lloyds of London, initially sued Appellees for negligence, strict liability, DTPA violations, and breach of warranties. The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees on all claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the economic loss rule barred tort claims, there was no evidence of manufacturing, design, or marketing defects, Lloyds lacked consumer standing under DTPA, and disclaimers effectively negated implied warranties. The court also found no error in denying a continuance.

Summary JudgmentEconomic Loss RuleStrict LiabilityNegligenceGross NegligenceManufacturing DefectDesign DefectMarketing DefectDeceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of Express Warranty
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tullos v. Eaton Corp.

Tullos filed a cause of action against Eaton Corporation and James Herman Gibson in Angelina County following an injury caused by allegedly defective logging equipment. Gibson sought to transfer the case to Trinity County via a plea of privilege. The court determined that venue was proper in Angelina County for Eaton Corporation and that Gibson was a necessary party. This was due to the intertwined nature of the causes of action, particularly concerning comparative causation and the allocation of damages among multiple defendants. Consequently, the court reversed the order sustaining Gibson's plea of privilege, mandating that the entire case be tried in Angelina County.

VenuePlea of PrivilegeNecessary PartiesJoint LiabilityComparative CausationProducts LiabilityNegligenceDefective EquipmentWorkers’ Compensation LawTexas Civil Practice
References
10
Case No. 2015-07-0053
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2015

Boyd, Michael v. Revel Logging, LLC.

The employee, Michael Boyd, alleged a work-related back injury and a vascular leg injury from a fall. He received authorized treatment for his back but sought independent treatment for the vascular condition. The trial court deemed both injuries compensable, ordering continuing care for the vascular issue and payment for related medical expenses, while denying a request for a second panel of physicians for the back injury. On appeal by the employer, Revel Logging, LLC, the Appeals Board affirmed the denial of additional back injury benefits. However, it reversed the trial court's determination that the vascular injury was compensable and that the employer was liable for associated medical bills, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryVascular InjuryCausationMedical TreatmentEmployee ClaimEmployer LiabilityAppealRemandPhysician Opinion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gould v. International Paper Co.

Plaintiff Lawrence Gould sustained a severe head injury while performing logging work for his father on property owned by International Paper Company. Plaintiff and his wife initiated an action against G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc., International Paper Company, and International Paper Timberlands Operating Company, alleging that G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. left the property in a dangerous condition by allowing hanging trees to remain, which caused the plaintiff's injuries. Earlier in the litigation, International Paper Company was granted summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, on the grounds of a lack of proximate cause evidence. Subsequently, G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, citing factual issues from a second deposition. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment to G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. is reversed. The appellate court ruled that the doctrine of the law of the case precluded reconsideration of the proximate cause issue, as it had already been judicially determined on facts common to all defendants. The court also found the second deposition testimony to be inconsistent, speculative, and lacking probative value. Summary judgment is granted to G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc., and the complaint against it is dismissed.

Summary JudgmentProximate CauseLaw of the CaseLogging AccidentPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityDangerous Property ConditionDeposition Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwestern Indemnity Co. v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case involves an appeal from an order sustaining a plea of privilege filed by the Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) to be sued in Dallas County, its established residence, rather than McLennan County where the suit was originally filed. The appellant, an insurance company, sought indemnity for a workmen’s compensation settlement concerning a deceased employee. The central legal issue was whether TEIA constitutes a private corporation or a state agency for venue purposes under Texas law. The court, analyzing Article 8308, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats., determined that TEIA possesses all characteristics of a private corporation, including the ability to sue and be sued, elected directors, and profit distribution. Consequently, TEIA was deemed a 'person' entitled to claim venue privilege in its county of residence. The trial court’s decision to sustain TEIA's plea of privilege and transfer the case to Dallas County was affirmed, as the appellant failed to demonstrate an exception to the general venue statute.

Workers' CompensationVenuePlea of PrivilegeCorporation StatusState AgencyTexas LawCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationDomicileIndemnity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cope Construction Co. v. Power

Randy Power suffered injuries on June 13, 1975, while riding on a tailgate of a truck owned by Cope Construction Co. and driven by Herman Yeager. Power filed a workers' compensation claim and subsequently a common-law tort claim in Galveston County against Cope Construction Co. and Herman Yeager. Cope's carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, also initiated a suit in Galveston County regarding Power's employment status. The appellants (Cope and Yeager) filed a plea of privilege, which was controverted by Power. Following motions to consolidate and reconsider, which were denied, the trial court overruled the plea of privilege. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the appellants had waived their plea of privilege through actions inconsistent with maintaining it, specifically by actively participating in and challenging the consolidation of the cases.

Plea of PrivilegeWaiver of VenueWorkers' CompensationTort ClaimMotion to ConsolidateAppellate ProcedureTexas LawCivil ProcedureVenue StatuteJudicial Conduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03327 [205 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

Newman v. Mount Sinai Med. Ctr., Inc.

Plaintiff Aja Newman appealed two orders related to discovery in her lawsuit against Mount Sinai for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision, stemming from sexual assaults committed by defendant Dr. David Newman on her and three other patients. The Supreme Court had denied Newman's motions to compel discovery regarding the identities of the other patients and hospital workers, and granted Mount Sinai's cross-motion for a protective order, citing quality assurance and HIPAA privileges. The Appellate Division reversed both orders, ruling that Mount Sinai failed to prove entitlement to the quality assurance privilege for all requested documents and that the doctor-patient privilege does not cover incidents of abuse. The court also clarified that HIPAA regulations allow for disclosure subject to a qualified protective order. The Appellate Division granted Newman's motions, directing Mount Sinai to disclose patient identities under a protective order, provide identities of Newman's coworkers, produce party statements from ordinary business records, and prepare a privilege log for quality assurance materials for in camera review, remanding the matter for further proceedings.

Discovery DisputeNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionQuality Assurance PrivilegeHIPAADoctor-Patient PrivilegeSexual AssaultPatient ConfidentialityProtective OrderPrivilege Log
References
13
Case No. ADJ9426494
Regular
Jun 10, 2015

BARBARA SWENSON vs. COMPASS HEALTH, MURPHY AND BEANE, INC.

In this Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, the applicant sought interview transcripts and statements of defense witnesses. The judge initially ordered the defendant to produce all such materials. The defendant petitioned for removal, arguing the order was overbroad and violated due process by failing to account for work product and attorney-client privilege. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, amending the original order. The amended order requires the defendant to provide requested materials, excluding those protected by privilege, for which a privilege log must be filed.

Petition for RemovalInterview TranscriptsWitness StatementsWork ProductAttorney-Client PrivilegePrivilege LogDue ProcessOverbroad OrderAppeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2015

ABRAHA, LUAM K. v. ADAMS, M.D., CRISTINE M.

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the discoverability of a plaintiff's shelter records from a domestic violence victims' shelter. The plaintiff sued multiple defendants, including medical professionals and a medical center, for alleged medical malpractice. The Supreme Court initially conducted an in camera review and ruled that most records were not subject to disclosure. The Appellate Division, however, determined that the shelter records are not privileged and are subject to disclosure if material and necessary, especially since the plaintiff waived any privilege by placing her medical and psychological condition in controversy. The order was modified to direct the plaintiff to provide a privilege log to the defendants, and the matter was remitted for a de novo determination on discoverability.

Discovery DisputeMedical MalpracticePrivilege LogShelter RecordsDomestic ViolenceWaiver of PrivilegeIn Camera ReviewCPLR 3122(b)Social Services LawAppellate Review
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 473 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