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

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Teamsters Local 210

Pro se plaintiffs, including Houston, filed a lawsuit against an ERISA-regulated fund seeking severance pay. They argued they were entitled to benefits because their termination occurred 'within one year of' their employer ceasing operations, interpreting the phrase to include the period before cessation. The defendants contended this phrase referred only to the period after cessation and also argued that all plaintiffs, except Houston, failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the non-Houston plaintiffs failed to exhaust remedies. For Houston's claim, the court found the plan language unambiguously supported the defendants' prospective interpretation of the 'within one year of' clause. Alternatively, even if ambiguous, the plan granted the defendants discretionary authority, and their consistent interpretation was deemed rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

ERISA BenefitsSeverance Pay DisputePlan InterpretationSummary Plan Description (SPD)Administrative ExhaustionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDiscretionary AuthorityEmployer CessationPro Se LitigantsMotion for Summary Judgment
References
32
Case No. PD-1050-14
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2015

Martin, Peter James

Peter James Martin, proceeding pro-se, filed a motion for rehearing following the denial of his petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on February 4, 2015. Martin was convicted of aggravated assault against a public servant, evading arrest, altering/destroying evidence, and possession of a controlled substance. His motion primarily argues for legally insufficient evidence of intent, knowledge, and causation regarding the aggravated assault charge, citing the deputy's alleged actions of running into the path of Martin's car, thus causing the 'threat' himself. Additionally, Martin contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to issues with chosen counsel and the unconstitutional abortion of a plea bargain process, where a judge's comments allegedly coerced him into waiving his right to chosen counsel and rejecting a 35-year plea offer unknowingly. The motion also details procedural issues regarding the confiscation of his legal documents by prison officials, which he claims hindered his ability to file a meritorious petition.

Criminal LawAggravated Assault Public ServantEvading ArrestLegal Insufficiency EvidenceConcurrent CausationRight to CounselPlea BargainIneffective Assistance of CounselDue ProcessFourth Amendment
References
39
Case No. ll-O4-O4686-CR-(l)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2015

Beeson, Daryl Lee

Daryl Lee Beeson, proceeding pro se, filed an objection to the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, citing a delay in receiving the lower court's documents. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate the complainant's "Multiple Personalities" and for the denial of his motion for continuance. Beeson also claims his counsel inadequately impeached a key state witness. He requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to mandate an evidentiary hearing or secure affidavits from trial counsel to address these critical issues related to his conviction for aggravated sexual assault.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselDue ProcessHabeas CorpusEvidentiary HearingMultiple Personality DisorderWitness ImpeachmentContinuance DenialAggravated Sexual AssaultJury InstructionsConfrontation Clause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coureau v. Granfield

Plaintiff Victor Coureau commenced a pro se action against Bill Granfield, President of Local 100 UNITE HERE, alleging various wrongs including personal injuries, termination of benefits, fraudulent inducement, and racial discrimination. The Court construed these allegations as arising from the Union's duty of fair representation and/or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint with prejudice, primarily due to the claims being barred by the six-month statute of limitations for breach of the duty of fair representation. Additionally, the Title VII claim failed because a breach of the duty of fair representation was not established and the plaintiff did not plead exhaustion of administrative remedies with the EEOC.

Duty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissPro Se LitigantTitle VII Civil Rights ActLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActUnion GrievanceRacial DiscriminationEmployment Termination
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1999

Husowitz v. American Postal Workers Union

Joseph Husowitz, a pro se plaintiff, sued the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) and individual union officers for breach of fair representation after his discharge from the U.S. Postal Service, alleging improper representation during his arbitration hearing. The individual union defendants and the APWU moved to dismiss, citing reasons like untimely service. Federal defendants, though not explicitly named in the complaint, also moved for dismissal. The court denied APWU's motion to dismiss for untimely service, attributing the delay to the Marshal Service. However, it granted the dismissal for individual union defendants, ruling that individuals cannot be sued for breach of fair representation under 39 U.S.C. § 1208(c). The federal defendants' motion was also granted without prejudice due to their improper naming in the complaint, with leave granted for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint.

Pro se litigationDuty of fair representationBreach of contractMotion to dismissUntimely serviceFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureUnion liabilityIndividual liabilityPostal Reorganization ActSubject matter jurisdiction
References
37
Case No. 2022-01-0054
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2023

Espinosa, Rodolfo v. Maestro’s Pro Services, LLC

Laura Estrella de Espinosa sought death benefits following the passing of her husband, Rodolfo Espinosa, who died from heatstroke while employed by Maestro’s Pro Services, LLC. The employer, being uninsured for workers’ compensation, did not appear at the hearing. Mrs. Espinosa testified regarding her husband’s work and the circumstances leading to his death. However, the Court concluded that she failed to meet her burden of proof by not providing expert medical testimony establishing that her husband's death arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, specifically that the work-related cause contributed more than fifty percent. Consequently, the Court denied the requested benefits, though it did tax the filing fee against Maestro’s Pro Services.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHeatstrokeCardiac ArrestMedical CausationBurden of ProofUninsured EmployerEmployee DeathTennessee LawFactual Insufficiency
References
0
Case No. NO. 12-09-00283-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2011

the Glidden Company D/B/A ICI Paints, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. CDNE, Inc. D/B/A All Pro Services, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

The Glidden Company appealed a trial court judgment awarding CDNE, Inc. damages for defective paint and attorney's fees, while All Pro Services cross-appealed regarding Glidden's award. The primary dispute centered on interpreting the 1582 Agreement concerning reimbursement for remediation costs incurred due to failed paint. The appellate court found the term 'costs' ambiguous and upheld the trial court's decision that All Pro Services was entitled to reimbursement at a rate of $32.50 per hour, including overtime. The court also affirmed that Glidden had effectively disclaimed consequential damages and that the replacement paint was not provided free of charge. However, the court reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration of Glidden's attorney's fees.

Contract InterpretationBreach of ContractConsequential DamagesAttorney's FeesContract AmbiguityReimbursementOvertime WagesDisclaimer ClauseSales AgreementPainting Contract
References
59
Case No. 08-20-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Eduardo A. Jonson v. Long Duong and Remy Grousson

Eduardo A. Jonson appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to file an out-of-time amended petition and the dismissal of his lawsuit against Long Duong and Remy Grousson. Jonson, a pro se litigant, raised three issues on appeal: denial of his rights as a pro se litigant, the trial judge's failure to recuse herself, and the judges' failure to adequately perform their duties. The Court of Appeals found Jonson waived his first and third issues due to inadequate briefing. His second issue regarding recusal was also waived for not filing a timely motion. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that pro se litigants are not exempt from procedural rules and dissatisfaction with rulings does not establish bias for recusal.

Pro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewPleading DefectsSpecial ExceptionsMotion to DismissRecusal MotionJudicial BiasWaiver of IssuesProcedural RulesBusiness Partnership Dispute
References
23
Case No. 02-23-00271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Russell Scott Donaldson, as Next Friend of His Grandchildren: L.A., R.A., A.A. and R.S.A., the Heirs of Robert John Aquino, III v. Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc.

Robert John Aquino, III, sued his employer, Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc., for premises liability and employment-related negligence after sustaining an injury from a nail at a worksite. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment on the premises liability claim and a take-nothing judgment on all claims, despite the motion only addressing premises liability. Aquino's heirs, through their next friend, appealed, contending that evidence existed to create a fact issue on the premises liability claim and that the judgment on the negligence claim exceeded the scope of the motion. The appellate court found that Aquino's deposition testimony provided more than a scintilla of evidence that Pro-Craft's crew created the dangerous condition, thus supporting an inference of knowledge. Additionally, the court ruled that the summary judgment on the negligence claim was erroneous as it was not addressed in the underlying motion. The trial court's summary judgment was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Premises LiabilityEmployment NegligenceSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence MotionDangerous ConditionEmployer LiabilityTexas Appellate LawAppellate ReviewCase ReversalCase Remand
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,401 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