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

United States v. Atlantic Richfield

This case involves a CERCLA cost recovery suit brought by the United States and the State of Texas against numerous companies for hazardous substance releases at the Sikes Disposal Pits Site in Harris County, Texas. The Sikes site, an unpermitted waste disposal facility, caused widespread soil and water contamination, leading to a major EPA-led remedial action completed in 1995, costing over $125 million. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was time-barred under CERCLA's six-year statute of limitations, claiming "physical on-site construction of the remedial action" commenced before the critical date of October 1, 1990. The Court, applying a four-part test, determined that preliminary activities like fencing, air monitoring, site clearing, and temporary road/trailer placement did not constitute the "initiation of physical on-site construction of the remedial action" because they were either removal actions, too preliminary, or not directly tied to the core remedy of incineration. Consequently, the Court DENIED the Defendants' motions for summary judgment and GRANTED the Plaintiffs' cross-motion, ruling that the statute of limitations was not triggered before October 1, 1990.

CERCLASummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEnvironmental LawHazardous WasteRemedial ActionOn-site ConstructionCost RecoveryFederal CourtPollution
References
18
Case No. NO. 14-06-00557-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2008

Douglas K. Brocail v. Detroit Tigers, Inc.

Douglas K. Brocail, a professional baseball player for the Detroit Tigers, sued the Club for injuries to his pitching arm. The Club was granted summary judgment based on federal Labor-Management Relations Act (LMRA) preemption, the Michigan Workers Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) exclusive-remedy provision, and Michigan's statute of frauds. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that most of Brocail's claims were either preempted by the LMRA or barred by the WDCA or the Michigan statute of frauds, specifically those relating to medical care and treatment. The court concluded that intentional torts were the only exception to the WDCA's exclusive remedy rule, but claims to which Brocail attempted to apply this exception were barred by the LMRA or the Michigan statute of frauds.

Professional Baseball PlayerSports InjuryElbow InjuryCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRA PreemptionWorker's Disability Compensation ActMichigan Statute of FraudsSummary JudgmentTort ClaimsMedical Negligence
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bennett v. Cash America International, Inc.

Janola Bennett appealed the trial court’s dismissal of her suit against Cash America International, Inc. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Bennett had sued Cash America for conversion, negligence, and gross negligence after the pawnshop lost a Masonic ring she had pledged. Cash America argued that the Texas Pawnshop Act provided an exclusive administrative remedy that Bennett failed to exhaust. The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that the Act's administrative review is an alternative, not an exclusive or mandatory, remedy, allowing Bennett to pursue common-law claims without prior administrative action. The court emphasized that the statute does not explicitly require exhaustion of administrative remedies and strictly construed the statute to protect common-law causes of action.

Pawnshop ActSubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineStatutory ConstructionCommon Law RemediesConversionNegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
5
Case No. 2015-2418 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Remedial Med. Care, P.C. v. Park Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, Park Insurance Co., sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint filed by Remedial Medical Care, P.C., as assignee of Thomas Brown. The Civil Court initially denied the motion but found that the defendant had established timely mailing of denials. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendant for a bill of services rendered on August 23, 2012, as it was paid according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. However, for the remaining bills, the defendant failed to prove timely mailing of IME scheduling letters, thus failing to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled or that the assignor failed to appear. Therefore, the denial of summary judgment for the remaining claims was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Timely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermCivil CourtDenial of ClaimFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson v. Lewis Bros. Bakery

Charles Wayne Davidson injured his shoulder in 2001 while working for Lewis Brothers Bakery and filed a workers' compensation claim, also naming the Second Injury Fund. After a voluntary non-suit in 2004, Davidson refiled the claim later that year, after the one-year statute of limitations had run. The Fund argued that the "savings statute" (Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105(a)) did not apply to claims against it due to sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court of Tennessee agreed, holding that the savings statute does not waive the Fund's sovereign immunity and thus does not "save" claims against it after the statute of limitations has expired. The court modified the trial court's order, dismissing the Second Injury Fund and removing its liability for benefits and costs.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundSovereign ImmunitySavings StatuteStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Non-SuitTennessee LawAppellate ReviewPermanent Total DisabilityWorkplace Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wright v. Herb Wright Stucco, Inc.

This dissenting opinion argues against a majority decision to dismiss a complaint, asserting that Labor Law § 220 should not diminish workers' existing common-law contractual rights regarding prevailing wages on public projects. The dissent highlights the statute's historical purpose as an ameliorative measure, intended to simplify enforcement for private employees and provide the sole remedy for certain public employees, rather than to remove established remedies. It contends that the statute should be construed liberally to protect workers. The dissent emphasizes the feasibility of establishing prevailing wage rates at trial, referencing statutory definitions and judicial precedents, concluding that the law should not inadvertently deprive workers of prior legal recourse.

Workers' RightsPrevailing WageLabor LawStatutory InterpretationCommon Law RemediesPublic ProjectsAdministrative EnforcementAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionNew York Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee C. Ritchie v. Ann Caldwell Rupe, as Trustee for the Dallas Gordon Rupe, III 1995 Family Trust

This case involves Ann Rupe, a minority shareholder and trustee for Buddy's Trust, who sued other shareholders and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation (RIC) for alleged oppressive actions and breach of fiduciary duties. Rupe claimed the defendants refused to buy her shares or meet with prospective outside buyers. The trial court ordered a $7.3 million buyout, which the court of appeals affirmed in part, finding the refusal to meet prospective purchasers oppressive, but remanding on valuation. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the defendants' conduct was not 'oppressive' under the Texas receivership statute, as it did not involve an abuse of authority with intent to harm the corporation or create a serious risk of harm to it. The Court clarified that the statute only authorizes the appointment of a rehabilitative receiver and does not permit a direct buyout remedy. Additionally, the Court declined to recognize a new common-law cause of action for 'minority shareholder oppression,' citing existing statutory and common-law protections. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Rupe's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and the potential for a buyout remedy under that claim.

Shareholder OppressionMinority ShareholdersClosely Held CorporationsFiduciary DutyBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate ReceivershipStatutory InterpretationCommon Law ClaimsCorporate GovernanceStock Buyout
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scalone v. Celotex Corp.

Plaintiff George Scalone, a New Jersey resident, brought an action in New York claiming asbestos-related injuries from exposure in New York worksites. Defendants Combustion Engineering, Inc. and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was time-barred by the New York Borrowing Statute (C.P.L.R. § 202). They contended that Scalone's cause of action accrued in New Jersey, where he became ill, and therefore New Jersey's statute of limitations should apply, precluding the New York Toxic Tort Revival Statute (C.P.L.R. § 214-c(2)). The court denied the motions, holding that for the purposes of the Toxic Tort Revival Statute, the place of accrual and place of injury are the same, and both are New York, given the plaintiff's exposure in the state. The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the Toxic Tort Revival Statute and found no clear legislative intent to exclude non-residents exposed in New York, even if they had other potential forums.

Toxic TortAsbestos ExposureStatute of LimitationsBorrowing StatuteToxic Tort Revival StatuteC.P.L.R. § 214-c(2)C.P.L.R. § 202Personal InjuryInterstate LawForum Shopping
References
2
Case No. 03-15-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2015

in Re Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A ACS State Healthcare, LLC

Relators Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC seek a writ of mandamus to overturn trial court orders that struck their third-party claims and denied leave to designate responsible third parties. The underlying suit is a Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA) enforcement action by the State of Texas against Xerox for misrepresenting its prior authorization review process for orthodontia services, leading to unauthorized Medicaid payments. The State argues the TMFPA is a remedial public welfare statute, not tort-based, and therefore Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code (CPRC) on proportionate responsibility does not apply. The State asserts it seeks civil remedies and penalties from Xerox for its independent unlawful acts, not apportionable damages, and that Xerox has an adequate remedy on appeal.

Medicaid FraudTexas LawMandamusCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationState EnforcementPrior AuthorizationHealthcare LitigationTort LawProportionate Responsibility
References
98
Showing 1-10 of 5,924 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