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. 12-09-00390-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2010

Trussell Insurance Services, Inc. and Employment Management Service, LLC v. Image Solutions, Inc.

Trussell Insurance Services, Inc. and Employment Management Service, LLC (Trussell) appealed the denial of their motion for sanctions against Image Solutions, Inc. (Image). The underlying dispute originated from a worker's injury, where Image sought workers' compensation coverage through a policy procured by Trussell, which was subsequently denied due to the insurer's insolvency. Image then filed third-party claims against Trussell for negligence and breach of contract, leading Trussell to counterclaim for sanctions. Despite both parties acknowledging the necessity of an evidentiary hearing for the sanctions motion, none was conducted. The appellate court determined that Trussell waived its right to sanctions by failing to secure an evidentiary hearing and by participating in a non-evidentiary one. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the sanctions motion was affirmed.

SanctionsSummary JudgmentEvidentiary HearingWaiverTexas Civil ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeWorkers' CompensationInsurance LitigationAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
19
Case No. 06-20-00056-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2020

Dipankar Chandra v. Leonardo DRS, Inc., and DRS Network & Imaging Services, LLC

Dipankar Chandra, representing himself pro se, sued his former employers, Leonardo DRS, Inc. and DRS Network & Imaging Services, LLC, alleging that his exposure to dangerous chemicals on the job caused his colon and prostate cancer. The trial court granted the defendants' traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment, concluding that Chandra's claims were barred by the Texas Workers Compensation Act and the statute of limitations, and that he lacked proof of causation. Chandra appealed, but failed to present expert testimony or challenge the trial court's decision to strike his affidavit and attached articles as summary judgment evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's take-nothing judgment, finding that Chandra did not produce more than a scintilla of evidence to establish causation.

Toxic TortSummary JudgmentCausationExpert TestimonyChemical ExposureCancerAppellate ReviewTexas Workers Compensation ActStatute of LimitationsEvidence
References
29
Case No. ADJ6755214
Regular
Sep 04, 2012

IGNACIO LOZANO vs. HAWAIIAN GARDENS CASINO, CNA CLAIMS PLUS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinded the original award, and disallowed both lien claims. The Board found that neither Scandoc Imaging nor Certified Interpreters met their burden of proof to establish the compensability of their respective liens. Specifically, Scandoc Imaging failed to provide evidence of the reasonableness of its charges, and Certified Interpreters lacked substantial evidence to support their claim. Consequently, both lien claimants were ordered to take nothing further.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimsScandoc ImagingCertified InterpretersBurden of ProofReasonableness of ChargesDiscoveryLabor Code Section 5703Findings and Award
References
3
Case No. 11-03-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2005

Ray Warren, M.D. and Texas Medical Images, Inc. v. KPH-Consolidation, Inc., D/B/A Columbia Kingwood Medical Center

Ray Warren, M.D. and Texas Medical Images, Inc. (Warren) appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to KPH-Consolidation, Inc. d/b/a Columbia Kingwood Medical Center (Kingwood). The dispute arose from Warren's failure to pay rent on two lease agreements, leading Kingwood to sue for breach of contract. The trial court granted Kingwood's motion for summary judgment and ruled against Warren on his counterclaim regarding a breach of an Expense Sharing Agreement and breach of warranty. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Kingwood had proven its breach-of-contract claim and that Warren's counterclaim failed as a matter of law, partly due to an 'as is' clause in the Equipment Lease. The appellate court also upheld the denial of Warren's motion for a new trial, finding no abuse of discretion.

summary judgmentbreach of contractlease agreementequipment leasecounterclaimbreach of warranty"as is" clauseappellate reviewabuse of discretionTexas law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Rabiner

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (Plaintiff) sued Eric Hagerbrant and other defendants, including Metropolitan Radiological Imaging, P.C., to recover over $2,000,000 in alleged fraudulent no-fault insurance payments. Plaintiff asserted claims for common law fraud, unjust enrichment, and sought a declaratory judgment, alleging that Metropolitan was fraudulently incorporated and ineligible for payments. Defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing preemption by New York Insurance Law § 5109, disputing the eligibility of independent contractors for No-Fault benefits, and asserting a statute of limitations defense. The court denied the defendants' motion in its entirety, finding that § 5109 did not eliminate a private right of action, the Insurance Department's position on independent contractors was valid, and the statute of limitations argument was premature.

Fraudulent IncorporationNo-Fault InsuranceUnjust EnrichmentDeclaratory Judgment ActionMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionInsurance Law InterpretationMedical Professional CorporationsIndependent Contractors EligibilityStatute of Limitations Defense
References
40
Case No. 04-95-00196-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1996

American Nat. Ins. v. Intern. Bus. MacH.

American National Insurance Company (ANICO) appealed a summary judgment dismissing its tort actions against International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), Image Sciences, Inc., and Thomas Kendra, which were severed from its breach of contract claims. ANICO alleged fraud, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation stemming from two contracts with IBM, claiming misrepresentations led to significant financial losses. The Court of Appeals reviewed the application of the economic loss rule to tort claims arising from a contract. The court reversed the summary judgment concerning ANICO's fraud claims against IBM and Image, specifically for allegations of fraudulent inducement to contract without an intent to perform, arguing such fraud constitutes an independent tort. However, it affirmed the dismissal of ANICO's other tort causes of action, remanding the fraud claims for further proceedings.

Contract LawFraudTort LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEconomic Loss RuleFraudulent InducementTexas Courts of AppealsConflict of LawsJudicial Precedent
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Inter-County Imaging Centers

Plaintiff Earlston Jones, diagnosed with sickle cell disease, filed an action alleging employment discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the New York Human Rights Law against Inter-County Imaging Center (ICIC) and Diane Demers. Jones claims he was denied a promotion and terminated due to his medical condition to avoid insurance costs. Defendants moved to dismiss, challenging ICIC's employer status, the number of employees for ADA applicability, and Demers' liability. The court denied dismissal of the ADA and Human Rights Law claims, pending discovery on employer identity and size. However, the court granted the dismissal of claims against Demers in her individual capacity and also dismissed the Title VII and Section 1981 claims.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentEmployer DefinitionIndividual LiabilityRepresentative CapacityEEOC ChargeSickle Cell Disease
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benners v. Blanks Color Imaging, Inc.

Raymond F. Benners appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Blanks Color Imaging, Inc. (BCI), Thomas Leron Blanks, and Douglas A. Heyerdahl. Benners alleged violations of the Texas Anti-Retaliation Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and civil conspiracy, stemming from his termination after filing a workers' compensation claim. Benners sustained an on-the-job back injury in 1998, reported it, and initiated a proceeding with the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission in 1999 to contest benefits. He was subsequently assigned additional duties and fired in 2001, purportedly due to cost-saving measures and a reduction in force. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Blanks and Heyerdahl were not "employers" under the anti-retaliation statute, and BCI provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (reduction in force) which Benners failed to sufficiently rebut as pretextual. Furthermore, Benners' claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and civil conspiracy also failed as he could not demonstrate extreme and outrageous conduct or an underlying tort.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationWrongful DischargeSummary Judgment AffirmedTexas Anti-Retaliation LawIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCivil ConspiracyEmployer LiabilityReduction in ForcePretext EvidenceCausal Connection
References
25
Case No. ADJ7902535
Regular
Dec 02, 2013

MARIA SANCHEZ vs. TARGET CORPORATION

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board denied California Imaging Solutions' petition for reconsideration. The Board also dismissed AR Med Management's petition for reconsideration on behalf of Dr. Saghafi and Spectrum Medical Supply because it was not timely filed. Even if timely, the AR Med Management petition would have been denied on its merits. The Board adopted the findings of the administrative law judge in both instances.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAR Med ManagementCalifornia Imaging SolutionsWCJ Reporttimely-filedmeritsSpectrum Medical SupplyDr. SaghafiTarget Corporation
References
0
Case No. ADJ2211265 (AHM 0083473) ADJ4072860 (AHM 0083472)
Regular
May 06, 2011

Darlyn Piper vs. DANKA OFFICE IMAGING, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns applicant Darlyn Piper's appeal of a permanent disability award for injuries sustained while employed by Danka Office Imaging. Applicant argues for total permanent disability, challenging the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Marinow's apportionment and deposition testimony. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the WCJ failed to address the admissibility of Dr. Marinow's deposition testimony. The case is therefore remanded for the WCJ to determine the deposition's admissibility and weight before issuing a new decision.

Darlyn PiperDanka Office ImagingZurich North AmericaLiberty Mutual Insurance Co.permanent disabilitytotal permanent disabilityvocational rehabilitationDr. Marinowapportionmentnon-industrial factors
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 129 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