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. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 01-A-01-9606-CV-00282
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 1997

Seffernick v. St. Thomas Hospital

The appellees, St. Thomas Hospital and Barry Yarbrough, M.D., filed a petition to rehear on four grounds. They argued that the Court's opinion conflicted with an unpublished Workers Compensation Panel opinion, misapprehended T.R.C.P. Rules 30.03 and 56.05 regarding unauthenticated evidence, that the Court acted on its own motion, and that the opinion was at odds with Rule 6. The Court found the cited opinion did not state if the deposition was authenticated or filed, and that the unauthenticated excerpt was not filed. The Court also stated that T.R.C.P. Rules 30.03 and 56.05 do not authorize unauthenticated evidence, and cited no authority requiring the Court to consider inappropriate evidence. Finally, the Court clarified that Rule 6 deals with procedural errors of a trial court, not the competence of evidence. Therefore, the petition to rehear was respectfully denied.

Petition to RehearAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityCourt RulesProcedural LawDeposition EvidenceUnauthenticated DocumentsJudicial DiscretionTennessee Appeals Court
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Knight v. Storex Systems, Inc.

The plaintiff, Brian V. Knight, holding a patent for dome-shaped storage structures, initiated legal action against multiple corporate and individual defendants for alleged willful patent infringement and contributory infringement. Additionally, Knight accused defendant Storex Systems, Inc., of breaching a licensing agreement related to the patent. The defendants filed motions seeking dismissal under various Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) subsections, or alternatively, for summary judgment under Rule 56. The court, presided over by Chief Judge McCurn, denied all motions to dismiss the patent infringement and breach of contract claims, citing that the arguments involved factual disputes necessitating discovery. The court also declined to convert the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment, noting that the pleadings were not closed and the plaintiff had not been afforded a full opportunity to present Rule 56 material.

Patent InfringementLicensing AgreementBreach of ContractFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56Motion to DismissSummary JudgmentRes JudicataContributory InfringementPatent Law
References
5
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04739 [241 AD3d 844]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2025

Rivera v. 26 W. 56, LLC

Nancy Rivera, an employee of Alba Services, Inc., was injured during a building renovation project when an HVAC duct fell on her while she was removing demolition debris. She commenced an action against the property owner, 26 W. 56, LLC, and the general contractor, Abeco Construction, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss this cause of action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding whether the HVAC duct required securing and fell due to an inadequate safety device, and also failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of her injuries.

Falling ObjectDemolition AccidentConstruction Site SafetySummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactWorker SafetyHVAC DuctProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1997

Claim of Oord v. Estate of Zielinski

Claimant was injured while logging timber on land owned by the estate of Alexander H. Zielinski in Schenectady County. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that decedent’s estate was a contractor under Workers’ Compensation Law § 56. The estate, through its executor Walter Zielinski, appealed this decision, arguing it did not own the timber after selling its rights and did not have a direct contract with Subik, claimant’s employer. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board’s conclusions that the estate owned the timber when the claimant was injured and had an agreement with Subik. Therefore, the award of workers’ compensation benefits was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationContractor LiabilityTimber LoggingEstate LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' Compensation BoardProperty OwnershipHazardous Employment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corpus Christi Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Corpus Christi

This cross-appeal addresses the interpretation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act (FPERA) concerning a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Corpus Christi and the Corpus Christi Fire Fighters Association. The dispute centers on whether the City's unilateral implementation of revised grooming standards and modifications to the Vehicle Accident Review Board (VARB) procedural rules constituted mandatory subjects for bargaining as "conditions of employment." Applying a balancing test, the court determined that both the grooming standards and the VARB rules had a greater impact on the City's management prerogatives, particularly public image and safety, than on the fire fighters' working conditions. Consequently, these issues were not deemed "conditions of employment" requiring collective bargaining. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on grooming standards and reversed its ruling regarding the VARB rules.

Collective BargainingFPERAGrooming StandardsVehicle Accident Review BoardConditions of EmploymentManagement PrerogativesPublic SafetyFire FightersUnilateral ImplementationLabor Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cavazos v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

The case involves an appeal from a trial court's dismissal of the appellant's suit to overturn a final ruling by the Industrial Accident Board. The dismissal was due to the appellant's failure to file the suit within the mandatory 20-day limitation period prescribed by Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307 § 5. The appellant contended that worker's compensation law should be liberally construed, citing precedents like Ward and Standard Fire Insurance Company. However, the court affirmed that the 20-day filing period is jurisdictional and mandatory. It clarified that Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for an enlargement of time for mailed documents, was inapplicable because the appellant's petition was filed late, not merely mailed late. The court concluded that applying Rule 5 would improperly extend the statute of limitations, and thus affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Statute of LimitationsJurisdictionTimely FilingAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident Board RulingRule 5 TRCPMandatory Statutory PeriodLiberal Construction DoctrineProcedural DismissalWorker's Benefits Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 10,630 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