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. 2016 NY Slip Op 05666 [143 AD3d 43]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2016

Jerdonek v. 41 West 72 LLC

Plaintiff Orfeusz M. Jerdonek was injured after falling from a scaffold while working in a boiler room at 41 West 72nd Street. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against Bar Construction Corp. The court modified the lower court's order, granting summary judgment to defendants 41 West 72 LLC and Property Markets Group, Inc., dismissing the Labor Law claims against them. The decision clarifies that the Hermitage Condominium's Board of Managers is the proper 'owner' for liability purposes concerning common elements, not the condominium sponsor or individual unit owners, due to the board's exclusive control over these elements. The court also granted plaintiff summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability against the Hermitage Board.

Condominium LawLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentOwner LiabilityCommon ElementsBoard of ManagersScaffold AccidentReal Property LawAppellate DivisionFirst Department
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1999

Gerber v. City of New York

Plaintiff Diana Gerber slipped and fell on black ice on a sidewalk in front of a storefront business located in a building owned by East 72 Tenants Corp., which leased the premises to Andrelux Group. Gerber commenced a negligence action against Andrelux, the City, and East 72. A default judgment was issued against Andrelux, and the City was granted summary judgment. The motion court denied East 72's cross-motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed. It found East 72, as an out-of-possession landlord, was not liable as its right to reenter under the lease was limited to permanent structures, not transient conditions like snow and ice. Furthermore, there was no evidence that East 72 or its agents attempted to remove snow or ice or made the condition more hazardous.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySidewalk Slip and FallBlack IceOut-of-Possession LandlordSummary JudgmentLease AgreementLandlord DutySnow and Ice RemovalAppellate Review
References
2
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

Board of Managers of the Mason Fisk Condominium v. 72 Berry Street, LLC

This case concerns a lawsuit brought by the Residential Board of Managers of the Mason Fisk Condominium against sponsor defendants, including 72 Berry Street, LLC, Meshberg Martin, LLC, and others. The Board alleged structural defects in condominium units and the sponsor's failure to secure a tax exemption, filing claims under the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA) and state law. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the Board lacked standing. The court granted the motion, ruling that the Board did not satisfy the requirements for associational standing due to the necessity of individual purchaser participation to determine liability and damages. Furthermore, the court found no valid assignee standing for the ILSA fraud claims. Consequently, all federal claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure ActCondominium DisputesLack of StandingAssociational StandingAssignee StandingMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionReal Property LitigationContract EnforcementFraud Allegations
References
37
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. 72-H-1169 and 72-H-1170
Regular Panel Decision

Merrill v. Exxon Corporation

This Memorandum and Opinion addresses whether newly hired employee-trainees are entitled to overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for time spent in mandatory classroom instruction after regular working hours. The plaintiffs, employees of Exxon Corporation in two consolidated civil actions, participated in an apprenticeship program requiring off-site classroom attendance, for which their collective bargaining agreement stipulated no compensation. The District Court examined the Portal-to-Portal Act (29 U.S.C. § 254) and federal labor regulations, particularly 29 C.F.R. § 785.32, which allows for the exclusion of such training time from compensable hours under specific conditions. The Court determined that classroom study, despite being required, was not an "integral and indispensable part of the principal activity" of employment, and thus not compensable under the FLSA. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, ruling against the plaintiffs' claim for overtime compensation for the training hours.

FLSAOvertime CompensationEmployee TraineesApprenticeship ProgramPortal-to-Portal ActSummary JudgmentWage and Hour RegulationsCollective Bargaining AgreementIntegral and Indispensable TestExxon Corporation
References
13
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 10,631 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