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. 22-0585
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2024

Texas Department of Transportation v. Mark Self and Birgit Self

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) was sued by Mark and Birgit Self for negligence and inverse condemnation after a subcontractor cut down trees on the Selfs' property outside the State's right-of-way easement. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment on both counts. The Court held that the Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for the Selfs' negligence claim because the subcontractor's employees were not in TxDOT's paid service, nor did TxDOT employees directly operate the equipment. However, the Court found a viable cause of action for inverse condemnation, concluding that TxDOT intentionally directed the destruction of the trees for public use, even if it mistakenly believed it had the legal right to do so. The negligence claim was dismissed, and the inverse condemnation claim was remanded for further proceedings.

Sovereign ImmunityInverse CondemnationNegligence ClaimTort Claims ActGovernment LiabilityProperty DamageRight-of-Way EasementSubcontractor LiabilityTree RemovalEminent Domain
References
65
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08737
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. Recco Home Care Servs., Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Albany County. Plaintiff NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust, a self-insured trust providing workers' compensation coverage, sued defendant Recco Home Care Services, Inc. for unpaid adjustments after the defendant terminated its membership. Following an amendment to the complaint adding individual trustees as plaintiffs, the defendant asserted counterclaims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence against these trustees, which the Supreme Court dismissed as time-barred. The defendant also sought to amend its answer to include a counterclaim under General Business Law, which was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the counterclaims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty and in denying the cross-motion to amend for the General Business Law claim. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing parts of the dismissal and denial, and affirmed the order as modified.

Workers' Compensation CoverageSelf-Insurance TrustFraud AllegationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyGeneral Business LawStatute of LimitationsAmended PleadingsCounterclaimsAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NYAHSA Servs., Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. People Care Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, which granted the plaintiff's motions for leave to amend complaints. The plaintiff, a group self-insured trust, initiated collection actions against former member employers, People Care Incorporated and Recco Home Care Services, Inc., for unpaid workers' compensation adjustment bills. The plaintiff sought to add its trustees as party plaintiffs and to update allegations to include subsequently accrued unpaid bills. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, clarifying that an evidentiary showing of merit is not required for leave to amend pleadings under CPLR 3025 (b) unless there is prejudice, surprise, palpable insufficiency, or patent lack of merit. The court found no such grounds for denial and also rejected the defendants' statute of limitations arguments, affirming that for contracts requiring continuing performance, each breach can restart the limitations period.

Workers' Compensation CoverageSelf-Insured TrustBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentPleading AmendmentCPLR 3025 (b)Statute of LimitationsPrejudiceAppellate ReviewSupreme Court Order
References
18
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03881
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2023

TJG Realty of Rockland, LLC v. Con Serv Constr., Inc.

This case involves two related actions for property damage after a fire at a commercial building. Plaintiffs TJG Realty of Rockland, LLC, Excelsior Estate Homes, LLC, Timothy Gulla, and E. Daskal Corp. sued Con Serv Construction, Inc., alleging negligence in installing a waste oil heater and storing flammable materials. A jury trial found in favor of Con Serv, determining the fire did not originate in the heater. The Supreme Court granted a directed verdict on one negligence theory but denied another. The Appellate Division affirmed the clerk's judgment, concluding the jury's verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence and any error in the directed verdict was harmless due to the jury's finding on the fire's origin.

Property DamageFireNegligenceJury VerdictExpert TestimonyCausationWaste Oil HeaterFlammable MaterialsAppellate ReviewWeight of Evidence
References
10
Case No. 12-20-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2021

Sean Self v. West Cedar Creek Municipal Utility District

Sean Self appealed a take-nothing judgment granted to West Cedar Creek Municipal Utility District, dismissing Self’s suit for damages from sewage flooding his home. Self alleged negligent use of motor-driven equipment, premises defect, unconstitutional taking, non-negligent nuisance, and breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Self failed to establish a waiver of governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act for the motor-driven equipment claim, as the damages arose from a broken plastic coupler, not the motor-driven pump. The court also found no evidence to support the premises liability, takings, non-negligent nuisance, or breach of contract claims, thus the District retained immunity.

Governmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActPlea to JurisdictionMotor-Driven EquipmentPremises DefectInverse CondemnationBreach of ContractNon-negligent NuisanceSewage FloodMunicipal Utility District
References
36
Case No. 03-22-00241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2023

Texas Political Subdivisions Joint Self-Insurance Fund v. Texas Department of Insurance - Division of Workers' Compensation and Commissioner Cassie Brown in Her Official Capacity

The Texas Political Subdivisions Joint Self-Insurance Fund (TPS Fund) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and summary-judgment motion by the 455th District Court of Travis County. The TPS Fund, a self-insured governmental entity, was assessed administrative penalties totaling $132,500 by the Texas Department of Insurance–Division of Workers’ Compensation for violations of the Texas Labor Code related to nonpayment or late payment of workers’ compensation benefits. The TPS Fund asserted governmental immunity from these penalties. The Court of Appeals reviewed the legislative history and prior common law, including Texas Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. City of Eagle Pass, to determine if immunity was waived. It concluded that the 2019 amendment to Labor Code Section 504.053(e) merely codified existing law, which had already established a clear waiver of immunity for such regulatory actions against self-insured political subdivisions. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order, holding that the TPS Fund’s governmental immunity is waived for the administrative penalties.

Workers' CompensationGovernmental ImmunityAdministrative PenaltiesTexas Labor CodeSelf-InsurancePolitical SubdivisionsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewRegulatory AuthoritySovereign Immunity
References
13
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06768 [121 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2014

Williams v. Air Serv Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted class certification to plaintiffs in a wage dispute against Air Serv Corporation. The plaintiffs, including Brenda Williams, alleged underpayment due to a policy originating from an Air Serv supervisor at John F. Kennedy International Airport. The court found that the plaintiffs met the prerequisites for class action certification under CPLR 901 and 902, demonstrating common issues of law and fact, typicality, and adequate representation. It also determined that a class action was superior to individual administrative proceedings due to litigation costs and modest individual damages, upholding the lower court's decision.

class action certificationwage disputeCPLR 901CPLR 902appellate reviewemployment lawclass representationcommonalitytypicalitysuperiority of class action
References
6
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01453
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2022

Matter of County of Nassau v. Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Civ. Serv. Empls. Assn., AFSCME, Local 1000, AFL-CIO

The County of Nassau appealed an order denying its petition to permanently stay arbitration and granting the respondents' motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose when the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA), on behalf of Joseph W. Grzymalski, a seasonal worker, filed a grievance claiming he was entitled to full-time benefits due to working 40 hours per week. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the reclassification of a civil service position, like Grzymalski's, can only be accomplished by the municipal civil service commission as per Civil Service Law § 22, thus rendering the grievance nonarbitrable. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted the County of Nassau's petition to permanently stay arbitration and denied the respondents' motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationPublic Sector EmploymentCivil Service LawGrievanceReclassificationSeasonal WorkerFull-Time BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Comanche Nation v. Fox

Justice Patterson dissents from the majority's decision, arguing that the trial court's denial of Jennifer Perry's and the Comanche Nation's motions for new trial was not an abuse of discretion. The dissent criticizes Perry's and the Comanche Nation's proofs for the *Craddock* factors as self-serving, conclusory, and inadequate. Specifically, Perry's excuse for non-appearance (advice from an employee, lack of funds) and the Comanche Nation's (counsel miscommunication) were deemed insufficient, lacking proper supporting affidavits from key individuals. Furthermore, Perry's arguments for a meritorious defense were self-serving, and the Comanche Nation failed to offer any proof regarding the child's best interest. The dissent concludes that appellants' 16-month indifference to the proceedings made their argument that a new trial would occasion no delay questionable, emphasizing that remanding the case would reward indifference and not serve the child's best interest in a conservatorship modification case.

Dissenting OpinionNew Trial MotionCraddock FactorsDefault JudgmentChild CustodyConservatorship ModificationConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseTrial Court DiscretionBest Interest of Child
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,872 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