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. 03-14-00726-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. D/B/A San Marcos Treatment Center v. Veronica Payton

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss Veronica Payton's health care liability claim. Payton alleged negligence after being assaulted by a patient at the treatment center. The appellant argues that the expert report provided by Dr. William H. Reid is deficient, lacking factual support and specificity concerning the standard of care, its breach, and causation, as required by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by finding the report adequate and requests dismissal of the claims.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CareBreach of DutyCausationHealth Care Liability ClaimPsychiatric FacilityEmployee Assault
References
25
Case No. D-4428/74
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1974

In re Graham S.

The case involves a juvenile respondent diagnosed with childhood schizophrenia and a history of delinquency, including burglary charges and multiple escapes from a state hospital. Medical experts testified to his dangerousness and need for a specific "open-door setting" in a maximum-security facility, which they noted is unavailable in New York State for children under 16. The court expressed strong disapproval of this lack of facilities. The decision orders the respondent's placement with the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene, directing the provision of the recommended treatment facility or a maximum-security placement pending its establishment, and mandating a report on his status by August 6, 1974.

Juvenile DelinquencyChildhood SchizophreniaPsychiatric EvaluationMaximum Security FacilityMental Hygiene LawFamily Court ActChild PlacementDangerous YouthInstitutionalizationJudicial Directive
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1978

In re Andre L.

This case presents a dissenting opinion regarding a juvenile offender with a history of truck theft and repeated absconding from placements. The Family Court had initially opted for placement in a secure facility. The dissenting judge, Kupferman, J.P., argues against this approach, criticizing the 'system' for failing to provide psychiatric treatment concurrently with security in Title III facilities, and deems another hearing as the 'least relevant' solution. However, the majority decision, with Justices Birns, Markewich, and Sandler concurring with Justice Fein, ultimately reversed the Family Court's order and remanded the matter for a further dispositional hearing and additional proceedings. The dissent emphasizes the critical need for integrated psychiatric care within secure juvenile placements.

Juvenile delinquencyFamily CourtSecure facility placementPsychiatric treatmentRecidivismDispositional hearingDissenting opinionRemandSystemic issuesNew York courts
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of the State of Texas

The case concerns an appeal by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Facility (the Facility) seeking a refund of approximately $24 million from the Comptroller for maintenance tax surcharges. The Facility argued it effectively paid the tax by reimbursing its member insurance companies and that the Department of Insurance exceeded its authority by adopting Rule 1.411, which mandated this reimbursement. The court rejected the Facility's arguments, holding that the member insurance companies, not the Facility, paid the tax, and affirmed the validity of Rule 1.411. Furthermore, the court found that the Facility failed to meet the statutory prerequisites for a tax refund, thereby affirming the trial court's judgment in favor of the Comptroller.

Tax RefundWorkers' Compensation InsuranceMaintenance Tax SurchargeInsurance LawAdministrative Rule ValidityAgency AuthorityStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentReimbursement ObligationInvoluntary Market
References
10
Case No. 03-01-00326-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2002

Sunbeam Environmental Services, Inc. and Alphonso Solomon and Company, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility, Succeeded by the Facility Insurance Corporation

The appellants, Sunbeam Environmental Services, Inc. and Alphonso Solomon and Company, Inc., challenged a judgment favoring the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility. The district court found them jointly and severally liable for unpaid workers' compensation premiums, interest, and attorney's fees. The appellants raised issues concerning the statute of limitations, sufficiency of evidence, pre-suit notice for attorney's fees, and authorization of attorneys. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the cause not barred by limitations, the evidence sufficient, and the attorney's fees and authorization issues resolved in favor of the judgment.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceUnpaid PremiumsStatute of LimitationsSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesJoint and Several LiabilityPayroll AuditInsurance Policy InterpretationAppellate ReviewTravis County
References
9
Case No. No. 91-16599-B
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. Personnel Services, Inc.

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Facility ("Facility") sued Personnel Services, Inc. ("PSI"), an employee leasing company, alleging that PSI misrepresented its employer status to procure lower workers’ compensation insurance rates for its client companies. The trial court found PSI misrepresented its status but issued a take-nothing judgment, citing the affirmative defenses of waiver, ratification, and estoppel. On appeal, the court examined whether the Facility had sufficient specific knowledge of PSI's fraud to bar recovery. The appellate court concluded that the Facility's general awareness of the staff leasing industry was insufficient to establish specific knowledge of PSI's misrepresentations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a determination of damages on the Facility’s fraud claim.

fraudworkers' compensation insuranceemployee leasingmisrepresentationexperience modifieraffirmative defenseswaiverratificationestoppelemployer status
References
13
Case No. 03-01-00371-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2002

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. Comptroller of Public Accounts and the Attorney General of the State of Texas

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility sought a refund of approximately $24,000,000 for maintenance tax surcharges it claimed it effectively paid by reimbursing its member insurance companies. The Facility argued it was not an insurance company itself and thus not subject to the tax, and that the Department of Insurance exceeded its authority by adopting Rule 1.411, which required the reimbursement. The court held that the member insurance companies, not the Facility, paid the tax. It also found Rule 1.411 to be valid and the Facility's reimbursement obligation a lawful component of the legislative scheme. Furthermore, the court determined that the Facility's role in reimbursing its servicing companies did not convert it into a taxpayer and that it failed to meet the statutory prerequisite for a tax refund by not first refunding its members. The trial court's judgment, denying the Facility's motion and granting the Comptroller's motion for summary judgment, was affirmed.

Tax Refund LitigationWorkers' Compensation Insurance FacilityMaintenance Tax SurchargeInsurance Company TaxationAdministrative Rule ValidityStatutory ConstructionSummary Judgment StandardInvoluntary Insurance MarketServicing Company ReimbursementTexas Tax Code Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2014

Evans v. Commissioner of Social Security

Valerie Evans sought judicial review of a denied disability benefits claim from the Commissioner of Social Security. Evans, a former contract negotiator, executive assistant, facilities assistant, and legal assistant, alleged disability as of September 30, 2011, due to severe neck and back pain with radiculopathy, ADHD, anxiety, and panic disorder following an assault. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found she was not disabled, determining her impairments did not meet listing levels and her allegations were inconsistent with her daily activities, conservative treatment, and stable medical examinations. The ALJ concluded Evans retained the residual functional capacity for sedentary work, a finding upheld by the United States Magistrate Judge. The court granted the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Evans's motion.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActJudicial ReviewResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkObjective Medical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAdministrative Law JudgeAnxiety DisorderDegenerative Disc Disease
References
45
Case No. 01-07-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2009

Sembera Security Systems, Inc. A/K/A Sembera Security, Inc. v. El Dorado Insurance Agency, Inc., and Texas Mutual Insurance Company, F/N/A Texas Workers' Compensation Fund and Texas Workers' Compensation Fund, Texas Workers' Compensation Fund

The case involves a dispute between Sembera Security Systems Inc. (Sembera) and Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMI) regarding the cancellation of Sembera’s workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Sembera sued TMI for breach of contract, alleging that TMI improperly cancelled its policy for non-payment of an "additional premium" during the policy term, leading to the termination of an agreement with En-Touch Systems, Inc. and causing Sembera lost profits. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the trial court initially ruling in favor of Sembera. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that TMI's cancellation of the policy was justified due to Sembera's failure to repay a $490 portion of the estimated initial premium after the policy's retroactive reinstatement. The appellate court held that TMI had the contractual right to cancel for non-payment of premium.

Breach of ContractWorkers' Compensation InsuranceSummary JudgmentInsurance Policy CancellationNon-payment of PremiumContract InterpretationLost Profits DamagesAppellate ReviewRetroactive ReinstatementInsurance Agent Liability
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06800
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2021

Harris v. Pelham Parkway Nursing Care & Rehabilitation Facility LLC

Plaintiff Mariantha Harris appealed an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, denying her cross motion for summary judgment dismissing an affirmative defense based on the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the order, granting Harris's cross motion. Harris successfully established prima facie that she was not an employee of Pelham Parkway Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Facility LLC at the time of her accident, but rather was solely employed by nonparty Clear Choice, P.C. The defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim that Harris was its special employee, with its reliance solely on the plaintiff performing duties at its nursing home being insufficient. Additionally, the court found the doctrine of judicial estoppel inapplicable because plaintiff had not secured a judgment in her favor in the prior proceeding, and the defendant's prematurity argument was improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

Summary JudgmentExclusive RemedyEmployment StatusSpecial EmployeeSlip and FallJudicial EstoppelAppellate ProcedureCross MotionAffirmative DefenseClear Choice P.C.
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,907 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