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. 04-20-00051-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2021

Medfinmanager, LLC v. John Salas

John Salas was injured on the job and sued the employer of another driver. While his case was pending, MedFinManager, LLC (MedFin) paid medical providers for Salas's spinal fusion surgery. After Salas settled, MedFin sued him for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel to recover its medical payments from the settlement proceeds. The trial court dismissed MedFin's breach of contract and quantum meruit claims, but awarded MedFin $69,393.10 on its promissory estoppel claim, denying all other relief and litigation costs. On appeal, MedFin challenged the dismissal of its contract and quantum meruit claims and the denial of attorney's fees for the promissory estoppel claim, while Salas cross-appealed the denial of litigation costs. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on MedFin's breach of contract and quantum meruit claims, and Salas's litigation costs, but reversed and remanded for a determination of MedFin’s attorney’s fees related to its promissory estoppel claim.

Contract LawQuantum MeruitPromissory EstoppelAttorney's FeesLitigation CostsSettlement OffersTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ProcedureMedical Liens
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Superior Laminate & Supply, Inc. v. Formica Corp.

Superior Laminate & Supply, Inc. sued Formica Corporation for breach of contract, fraud, and promissory estoppel after Formica terminated their distributorship agreement. Superior claimed Formica promised a non-terminable relationship, inducing significant investment. The jury found Formica committed fraud but also found Superior should have discovered it earlier, barring the claim by the statute of limitations. The trial court also disregarded jury findings on promissory estoppel due to existing valid agreements. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's take-nothing judgment against Superior, upholding the statute of limitations defense and the principle that promissory estoppel cannot replace an enforceable contract.

Contract DisputeFraud ClaimPromissory EstoppelStatute of LimitationsDistributorship AgreementBreach of ContractAffirmative DefenseNovationMerger DoctrineAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Benson Properties, Inc.

This case concerns a plaintiff's lawsuit against her employer, alleging four state law causes of action: breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of a verbal hiring promise, breach of promissory estoppel, and a combined claim of breach of contract and promissory estoppel. The defendant filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing against these claims. The court, presided over by District Judge Prado, analyzed Texas law, finding no legal basis for an implied covenant of good faith in employment contracts or for verbal hiring promises under the statute of frauds. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite promise for her promissory estoppel claims. Consequently, the motion for partial summary judgment was granted in favor of the defendant, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Employment LawTexasContract LawAt-Will EmploymentSummary JudgmentPromissory EstoppelGood FaithFair DealingWrongful DischargeStatute of Frauds
References
14
Case No. 12-18-00344-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2019

Thomas Oilfield Services, LLC/Cross-Appellee v. Albert Clark/Cross-Appellant

Thomas Oilfield Services, L.L.C. (TOS) appealed a judgment in favor of Albert Clark. Clark had sued TOS for breach of employment contract, retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code, and promissory estoppel. A jury found in favor of Clark on the promissory estoppel claim, awarding damages. TOS challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for the damages award, arguing that Clark had no out-of-pocket expenditures, which are required for reliance damages in promissory estoppel. The court of appeals agreed, declining to expand the definition of reliance damages to include 'foregone opportunities' such as lost salary. Consequently, the court found the evidence legally insufficient to support the jury's award of reliance damages, reversed the trial court's judgment, and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of TOS.

Promissory EstoppelReliance DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceEmployment LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimRetaliatory DischargeBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewTexas Court of AppealsJury Verdict
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chavez v. Broadway Electric Service Corp.

Lester M. Chavez, Roger S. Davy, and Judith Chavez, formerly employed in Colorado, relocated to Oak Ridge, Tennessee, expecting long-term employment with Broadway Electric Service Corporation (BESCO) based on various representations. Mr. Chavez and Mr. Davy were told there was work for "ten years," and Mrs. Chavez was promised a one-year escort position. However, due to an unexpected downturn in construction work, BESCO quickly furloughed Mr. Chavez and Mr. Davy, and Mrs. Chavez faced issues with her security clearance, preventing her immediate work. The plaintiffs sued BESCO for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, and promissory estoppel. The trial court awarded damages to Mr. Chavez and Mr. Davy under promissory estoppel and to Mrs. Chavez for breach of an oral contract. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment for Mr. Chavez and Mr. Davy, deeming the employer's representations too vague to constitute unambiguous promises for promissory estoppel, but affirmed the judgment for Mrs. Chavez based on the enforceable oral one-year employment contract.

Employment-at-willPromissory estoppelDetrimental relianceBreach of oral contractFraudulent misrepresentationNegligent misrepresentationStatute of fraudsOral employment agreementJob market representationsFurlough
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vassenelli v. City of Syracuse

The plaintiff, a disabled and retired police officer, appealed four separate orders dismissing his amended complaint for damages. The claims stemmed from the management of his health care benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c by various defendants, including POMCO Group, City of Syracuse, PMA Management Corp., and their employees. The appeals challenged dismissals concerning causes of action such as negligence, gross negligence, promissory estoppel, and breach of contract. The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, reinstating several claims, including negligence against all defendants and promissory estoppel and breach of contract against the City defendants, concluding that duties of care were potentially assumed and that collateral estoppel did not bar certain claims. Additionally, the court found the city defendants' contention regarding untimely service under CPLR 205 (a) to be without merit, and some retaliation claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act were also reinstated.

Health Care BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cNegligence ClaimsGross NegligencePromissory EstoppelBreach of ContractAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActCollateral EstoppelCPLR 3211 Motion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rampy v. ICI Acrylics, Inc.

Kathryn Grace Rampy sued ICI Acrylics, Inc. and several employees in Shelby County for wrongful termination and related claims including breach of employment contract, promissory estoppel, negligent supervision, and civil conspiracy. The Chancery Court dismissed her complaint with prejudice, applying Mississippi law to substantive issues. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Mississippi's employment-at-will doctrine, with its narrow public policy exceptions, did not support Rampy's claims. Furthermore, her claims for promissory estoppel, negligent supervision (barred by workers' compensation law), and civil conspiracy (as at-will employment cannot be tortiously interfered with) were also deemed meritless.

Employment LawWrongful TerminationAt-Will EmploymentBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelNegligent SupervisionCivil ConspiracyMississippi LawTennessee ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saucedo v. Rheem Manufacturing Co.

Jose Saucedo appealed a summary judgment ruling against him in his claims against Rheem Manufacturing Company and Jaime Loera, alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, fraud, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on all claims except for Saucedo's breach of contract claim against Rheem. The court found that Saucedo's employment for an annual salary exempted his contract from the Statute of Frauds, allowing his breach of contract claim to proceed for damages incurred until July 14, 1995. However, the court upheld the summary judgment on defamation due to invited publication and lack of outrageous conduct for emotional distress, and on promissory estoppel and fraud due to the Statute of Frauds.

breach of contractpromissory estoppelfrauddefamationintentional infliction of emotional distresssummary judgment appealemployment at willStatute of Fraudsresume fraudappellate court
References
29
Case No. 07-06-0301-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2008

the City of Grey Forest, Texas v. Glen W. Vernon & Denise G. Vernon and Intervenor, Paul Granado

The City of Grey Forest appealed a trial court's judgment in favor of Glen W. Vernon, Denise G. Vernon, and Paul Granado regarding an alleged agreement to construct a continuous road and provide utilities in exchange for an easement. The appellees had sued for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel after the city ended the road paving project at their property line and fenced off access to another road. The trial court had ruled for the Vernons and Granado, awarding damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas reversed the trial court's judgment, finding no enforceable contract and concluding that the appellees could not recover under promissory estoppel as they were not the original promisees and failed to prove detrimental reliance. Consequently, the appellate court rendered a judgment that the Vernons and Granado take nothing.

Contract LawProperty EasementsMunicipal LiabilityPromissory EstoppelAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil PracticeDeclaratory JudgmentsDamages ClaimsAttorney FeesGovernmental Immunity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearce v. Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc.

Plaintiff Anna Pearce initiated an action against Manhattan Ensemble Theater, Inc. and several other defendants, asserting claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith, promissory estoppel, invasion of privacy under New York Civil Rights Law Section 51, unjust enrichment, and employment discrimination under New York City and State Human Rights Laws. The defendants responded with a motion to dismiss the entire action for failure to state a claim. District Judge Kimba M. Wood ruled on the motion, granting it partially and denying it in part. The court sustained the claims related to breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and invasion of privacy, allowing them to proceed. Conversely, the claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, and employment discrimination were dismissed.

Breach of ContractPromissory EstoppelInvasion of PrivacyMotion to DismissNew York Civil Rights LawOral AgreementsStatute of FraudsImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingEmployment DiscriminationHuman Rights Law
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 638 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