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. 13-14-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Alamo Home Finance, Inc. and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Mario Duran and Maria Duran

This case involves an appeal from the 92nd District Court of Cameron County, Texas, regarding the denial of motions for new trial to vacate no-answer and post-answer default judgments entered against Alamo Home Finance, Inc. and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. in favor of Mario and Maria Duran. The Durans had sued Gonzalez for breach of contract, negligence, and DTPA violations related to a loan for property taxes and alleged failure to purchase insurance, later adding Alamo Home Finance as a defendant. Appellants argued for a new trial based on strict non-compliance with rules of service for Alamo and lack of proper notice of trial settings for Gonzalez. Additionally, both appellants contended they met the Craddock test requirements for setting aside a default judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the motions for new trial, finding that Alamo was not served in strict compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Gonzalez did not receive appropriate notice of trial settings, and both parties satisfied the Craddock equitable factors. The court also denied both parties' motions for appellate sanctions. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialStrict ComplianceService of ProcessDue ProcessCraddock TestAppellate SanctionsBreach of ContractNegligenceTexas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Franco v. Jay Cee of New York Corp.

An apprentice elevator mechanic was injured by an elevator counterweight while working on an elevator modernization project at a building owned by Jay Gee of New York Corp. The plaintiff sued Jay Gee and TJK, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), which incorporated 12 NYCRR 23-2.5 (b) (3) regarding the need for partitions. After a jury found Jay Gee not liable, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the jury's verdict, finding that the trial court erred by allowing defense witnesses to provide misleading expert testimony on the interpretation of Industrial Code § 23-2.5 (b) (3). The case was remanded for a new trial, with the court noting that instructions on the defense of impossibility might be required.

Elevator AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeJury VerdictEvidentiary ErrorExpert TestimonyStatutory InterpretationRemandNew Trial
References
8
Case No. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Toney v. Mueller Co.

This is a workers' compensation appeal concerning the denial of an employee's (Mr. Toney) motion to set aside a judgment, filed under Rule 60.02, Tenn.R.Civ.P., alleging a mistake regarding the extent of his injury. Mr. Toney had been awarded benefits based on a 15% permanent partial disability, but later underwent a spinal fusion, leading him to argue the original assessment was mistaken. The trial court denied his motion, reasoning that the conditions for which he was later treated already existed at the time of the original trial. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that Rule 60.02 serves as an "escape valve" for inequity, not merely for changed circumstances or dissatisfaction, and found no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's ruling.

Rule 60.02Post-Judgment MotionPermanent Partial DisabilitySpinal FusionPercutaneous Lumbar DiskectomyMedical Impairment RatingJudicial DiscretionFinality PrincipleMistake of FactRadiculopathy
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zimmer-Thomson Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

The employer filed an action against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and a union, seeking to set aside the union's certification as the exclusive bargaining representative and to restrain the union from taking further action before the National War Labor Board (NWLB). The employer alleged procedural flaws in the election process, including uncounted challenged ballots and denial of opportunity to be heard. Both defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review NLRB certifications, which are only informatory. Furthermore, it found that NWLB directives are merely advisory and thus cause no irreparable injury. Consequently, the court denied the employer's motion for a temporary injunction and dismissed the complaint, finding no cause of action.

Labor LawNLRB CertificationJudicial ReviewInjunctionCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticesWar Labor BoardChallenged BallotsDistrict Court JurisdictionAdministrative Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wooley v. Gould, Inc.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Chancellor's denial of an appellant's motion to set aside a lump-sum workers' compensation settlement. The appellant filed the motion exactly one year after the settlement's approval, alleging fraud or mistake regarding his disability. The Court found the motion untimely, stating that while within the one-year maximum, the appellant failed to act within a "reasonable time." Additionally, the appellant did not offer to return the benefits received, a long-standing requirement for rescinding workers' compensation settlements in the state. The Court rejected claims of insufficient advice regarding employment prospects or the disability rating, emphasizing the finality of lump-sum settlements.

Workers' Compensation SettlementRule 60.02 MotionTimeliness of MotionTender of BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityBack InjuryLaminectomyMedical ReportChancery CourtSupreme Court of Tennessee
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2010

Claim of Moreno v. Licea

This case involves appeals from two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board. The first decision, filed April 6, 2009, established an employer-employee relationship between the claimant and 2180 Realty Corporation. The second decision, filed October 16, 2009, denied the claimant's request for reconsideration or full Board review. The court affirmed these decisions, aligning with the reasons set forth in *Matter of Perez v Licea*, a case with identical issues decided herewith. Additionally, the court noted Joseph Edelman's acknowledgment of discussing work performance with the claimant. The claimant's appeal regarding the denial of full Board review or reconsideration was deemed abandoned.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipBoard DecisionsReconsiderationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewAffirmed DecisionsAbandoned AppealJudicial Concurrence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2000

La Fountaine v. Franzese

This personal injury action concerns a plaintiff (a minor) who suffered lead poisoning between April 1992 and September 1993 while living in an apartment owned and managed by the defendants. Routine medical examinations revealed elevated blood lead levels, prompting the Albany County Department of Health to order lead abatement procedures, which the defendants performed inadequately. Experts testified that the lead poisoning caused permanent disorders, including ADHD, cognitive, and reading disorders, which were not capable of practical apportionment between pre-notice and post-notice exposure periods. The jury awarded the plaintiff $500,000 for past pain and suffering, $1,000,000 for future pain and suffering, and $300,000 for future lost earnings, assigning 70% liability to the defendants. Defendants appealed the judgment and the denial of their motion to set aside the verdict, arguing lack of liability before notice, erroneous jury instructions, and excessive damages. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment and order, finding the defendants' arguments without merit and upholding the jury's findings on non-apportionment of injuries and the reasonableness of the damage awards.

Lead poisoningLandlord liabilityPersonal injury damagesNon-apportionment of injuriesADHDCognitive disordersEnvironmental lead hazardInadequate abatementExpert medical testimonyJury verdict review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGinn v. Morrin

This order addresses the defendants' motion to vacate and set aside the service of various legal documents, including an order to show cause, affidavit, summons, and verified complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion. The decision included an award of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. Defendants were also granted leave to answer within twenty days after the service of the order, contingent upon the payment of the aforementioned costs.

Motion to VacateService of ProcessOrder to Show CauseVerified ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsAffirmation of OrderLeave to Answer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goad v. MacOn County, Tenn.

Plaintiff Joe Goad initiated a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action, alleging excessive force and denial of medical attention while a pretrial detainee. After some defendants settled, the case proceeded to trial, where a jury found Jeff Bilbrey, James Mercer, and Macon County liable for unreasonable force, and Mercer and Macon County for denial of medical treatment, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to reduce the jury verdict by the amount of the earlier settlement. Applying Tennessee law and federal common law principles, the court granted the set-off for compensatory damages, finding it consistent with the goal of victim compensation without creating a windfall. However, the court denied the set-off for punitive damages, reasoning that such a reduction would undermine the specific purpose of punishment and deterrence against civil rights violators.

Civil Rights ActionExcessive ForceDenial of Medical TreatmentPretrial DetaineeSettlement Set-offPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesJoint LiabilityFederal Common LawState Law Application
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 6,628 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