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. 01-15-00567-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2015

in the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson

This case involves an appeal filed by Mackey Glen Peterson, Tonya Peterson, Don Leslie Peterson, and Lonny Peterson against Silverado Senior Living, Inc., d/b/a Silverado Senior Living Sugar Land. The dispute centers on the appellants' standing to bring claims on behalf of Ruby S. Peterson, a resident at Silverado. The plaintiffs allege false imprisonment, assault and battery (due to forced psychotropic drugs), breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy, contending that Silverado acted against Ruby Peterson's will despite a revoked power of attorney. Silverado sought dismissal of these claims, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing and that Silverado acted in good faith based on a valid 1993 power of attorney. The court previously granted a 91a motion to dismiss earlier causes of action, and Silverado is currently moving to dismiss the remaining claims.

DementiaElder AbusePower of AttorneyMedical DecisionsFalse ImprisonmentAssault and BatteryFiduciary DutyConspiracyRule 91a DismissalStanding
References
25
Case No. 03-05-00610-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2006

in Re Senior Living Properties, L.L.C.

Relator Senior Living Properties, L.L.C. petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the trial court's refusal to abate a lawsuit brought by former employee Betty Robinett. Robinett sued Senior Living for negligence and breach of contract after being denied benefits from an Employee Injury Benefit Plan following a job injury. Senior Living contended that Robinett was bound by an arbitration agreement. The Texas Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ruling that Robinett's claims, including those sounding in tort, were encompassed by the arbitration agreement in the Employee Protection Plan, thereby compelling her to undergo mediation and binding arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment InjuryMandamus PetitionContract BreachNegligence ClaimEmployee Benefits PlanTexas Appellate CourtDispute ResolutionWorkers' Compensation AlternativeWaiver of Rights
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Atria Senior Living Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernest Rodriguez sued his former employer Atria Senior Living Group under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rodriguez moved for partial summary judgment on one ADA reasonable accommodation claim, one ADA retaliation claim, and six FMLA interference claims. The Court denied Rodriguez's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. The Court granted summary judgment to Atria on the ADA reasonable accommodation claim, the ADA retaliation claim, and four of the FMLA claims, finding no genuine disputes of material fact. However, for two FMLA claims concerning health insurance premiums and concurrent workers' compensation leave, the Court denied summary judgment to both parties due to unresolved factual disputes.

ADA accommodationADA retaliationFMLA interferenceSummary judgmentMedical leaveDisability discrimination100% healed policyHealth insurance premiumsWorkers' compensationEmployee benefits
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 553, Transport Workers Union v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

Plaintiff, Local 553, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, sued defendant Eastern Air Lines, Inc., alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act. The dispute arose from Eastern's agreement to take over Braniff's Latin American routes and hire Braniff flight attendants, which the Union claimed breached their collective bargaining agreement's seniority clause. The Union argued this constituted a 'major' dispute under the RLA, requiring an injunction to preserve the status quo. The court analyzed whether the dispute was 'major' or 'minor,' the irreparable harm to the Union, and affirmative defenses raised by Eastern, including compliance with the Norris-LaGuardia Act and jurisdictional challenges. The court ultimately found the Union likely to succeed on the merits, established irreparable harm, and rejected Eastern's defenses, granting preliminary injunctive relief to the Union. Eastern was ordered to post flights for bid by seniority or compensate affected Union members.

Labor DisputeRailway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority RightsStatus QuoAirline IndustryForeign NationalsInternational RoutesNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
38
Case No. 2017-06-0811
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Summers, Mary v. BrightSpace Senior Living, LLC

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee, Mary Summers, initially reported a left leg injury from a fall at work, which the employer, BrightSpace Senior Living, LLC, accepted. Subsequently, Summers reported right shoulder and ribcage injuries from the same incident, which the employer denied, arguing they were not work-related. The trial court ordered the employer to provide medical treatment for these additional injuries. The employer appealed, asserting an incorrect evidentiary standard was applied at the expedited hearing. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order and remanded the case, finding sufficient evidence that the employee's shoulder and ribcage injuries were likely a result of the work-related fall.

Interlocutory AppealInjury CausationMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryRibcage InjuryLeg InjuryEvidentiary StandardPanel of PhysiciansDelayed ReportingPre-existing Injury
References
6
Case No. 01-10-01000-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2012

Mary Collins v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. and Nick Roccoforte

Mary Collins, an appellant, challenged a take-nothing judgment on a jury verdict in favor of appellees Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. and Nick Roccaforte. Collins had sued for tortious interference and defamation after Roccaforte banned her from their facilities due to alleged misconduct and resident mistreatment. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while the jury's "no publication" finding for defamation was legally insufficient, the defendants conclusively established the substantial truth of the complaints against Collins, thereby defeating her defamation claim. The court also affirmed the jury's finding of no business disparagement and upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings.

tortious interferencedefamationbusiness disparagementjustification defensegood faith beliefsubstantial truthappellate reviewjury verdictelder careindependent living facility
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. 2021-08-0966
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2024

Woods, Lorene V. ST. FRANCIS SENIOR HEALTHCARE CENTER

Lorene Woods sought benefits for a neck condition and permanent disability related to a low-back strain sustained in June 2020 while working for St. Francis Senior Healthcare Center. While the low-back strain was compensable, the employer disputed the work-relatedness of the neck complaints. The Court found that Ms. Woods failed to provide expert medical opinion establishing causation for her neck condition and thus denied related benefits and future medical treatment. For the low-back injury, the Court determined she reached maximum medical improvement with a 0% impairment rating, denying permanent partial disability benefits. However, St. Francis was ordered to continue paying for reasonable and necessary medical treatment for the work-related low-back injury.

Workers' CompensationLow-back injuryNeck conditionCausationMedical treatmentPermanent partial disabilityMaximum Medical ImprovementDegenerative changesExpert medical opinionCredibility of witness
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,998 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