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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas D/B/A Bonded Builders Warranty Group, Daniel Avila, Grisele Edith Arizpe, and AA Builders, LLC v. Patricia Rockoff

Patricia Rockoff purchased a home from AA Builders, LLC, which included a warranty from Bonded Builders Home Warranty Association of Texas (BBWG). After discovering structural defects, Rockoff filed claims against both AA Builders and BBWG, subsequently initiating a lawsuit. Both AA Builders and BBWG moved to compel arbitration based on the warranty's terms, but the trial court denied these motions. On interlocutory appeal, the appellate court reversed, affirming the validity and scope of the arbitration agreement. The court rejected arguments regarding the unconscionability of arbitrator selection and limitations on remedies, but remanded the case for the trial court to determine if the arbitration costs render the agreement substantively unconscionable after an arbitrator is appointed.

Interlocutory AppealArbitrationUnconscionabilityHome WarrantyConstruction DefectsFederal Arbitration ActTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActContract LawProcedural UnconscionabilitySubstantive Unconscionability
References
54
Case No. 07-10-0397-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2011

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Inc. and American Cancer Society High Plains Division, Inc.

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. (Chesapeake) appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Inc. (DAPS) and American Cancer Society High Plains Division, Inc. (ACS). Chesapeake sought to recover bonus money paid for oil and gas leases, asserting claims for breach of the covenant of seisin, rescission due to mutual mistake, unilateral mistake, money had and received/unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation. The Charities argued the leases, despite containing a special warranty, operated as quitclaim deeds and that Chesapeake could not show justifiable reliance due to an independent title investigation. The appellate court concluded that the leases were special warranty deeds, conveying the property itself, not merely quitclaim deeds. Furthermore, the court found that Chesapeake's preliminary title investigation did not negate reliance or causation, as it reinforced the Charities' representations and failed to reveal the defects. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Oil and Gas LeaseSummary JudgmentSpecial Warranty DeedQuitclaim DeedMutual MistakeUnilateral MistakeUnjust EnrichmentNegligent MisrepresentationCovenant of SeisinContract Dispute
References
42
Case No. 07-10-0397-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2011

Manuel Gutierrez Torres v. State

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. appealed a summary judgment that favored Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Inc., and American Cancer Society High Plains Division, Inc. Chesapeake sought to reclaim bonus money paid for oil and gas leases on property the Charities did not own. The Charities argued their special warranty leases served as quitclaim deeds, thereby barring Chesapeake's claims. The Court of Appeals determined the leases were special warranty deeds, conveying property title, not merely quitclaiming rights, and concluded Chesapeake's claims were not barred. Additionally, the court found that Chesapeake's independent title investigation did not negate justifiable reliance on the Charities' representations, as the investigation actually reinforced the belief that the Charities held proper title. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Oil and Gas LeaseSpecial Warranty DeedQuitclaim DeedMutual MistakeUnilateral MistakeNegligent MisrepresentationCovenant of SeisinSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate ReversalRemand
References
44
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05037 [163 AD3d 558]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Empire State Transp. Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Comm.

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust for judicial approval of a settlement, nunc pro tunc, against the Special Funds Conservation Committee. The underlying issue stemmed from the Trust's failure to obtain consent from the Special Funds for a claimant's personal injury settlement, which led the Workers' Compensation Board to find a waiver of reimbursement rights. After an initial denial by the Supreme Court, the Appellate Division reversed and remitted, affirming the court's discretion in compelling such consent. Upon remittitur, the Supreme Court granted the petition, directing the Special Funds to provide nunc pro tunc consent. The Appellate Division affirmed this subsequent order, concluding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay was adequately explained, and no prejudice was demonstrated against the Special Disability Fund.

Workers' CompensationNunc Pro TuncSettlement ApprovalPersonal Injury ActionSpecial Funds Conservation CommitteeAppellate DiscretionReimbursement WaiverJudicial ReviewAppellate PracticeNassau County
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06200
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Matter of NYAHSA Servs., Inc. v. Special Funds Group

This case concerns an appeal by NYAHSA Services, Inc., the workers' compensation insurance carrier for St. Patrick's Nursing Home, from an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc. The underlying matter involved Karen DiNoia, who sustained injuries in 2001 during employment and settled a third-party personal injury action in 2005 for $400,000. Although NYAHSA consented, the Special Funds Group's consent was not obtained at the time, which is crucial for the carrier to be reimbursed from the Special Disability Fund. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing a lack of required documentation. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the decision, finding that the settlement was reasonable, the delay in seeking judicial relief was not the petitioner's fault, and the Special Funds Group was not prejudiced, thus granting the petition.

Nunc Pro TuncPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalAppellate ReviewSpecial Disability FundInsurance Carrier ReimbursementSupreme Court DiscretionDelayPrejudiceReasonableness of Settlement
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1961

SPECIAL PRODUCTS COMPANY OF TENN. v. Jennings

Sixty-two striking employees of Special Products Company claimed unemployment benefits after their jobs were filled during a labor dispute. The Commissioner and Board of Review allowed these claims, a decision upheld by the Chancery Court of Hamilton County. Special Products Company appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee, arguing against benefit payments and seeking a non-charge against its experience rating. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decree, ruling that the disqualification for a labor dispute ceased once the strike was abandoned and employees sought re-employment. The Court found that the subsequent unemployment was due to the unavailability of jobs, not the strike itself, thereby entitling the former employees to benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsLabor DisputeStrikeJob ReplacementsEmployment Security ActVoluntary Quitting DisqualificationMisconduct DisqualificationExperience Rating PenaltySupreme Court DecisionStrike Termination
References
5
Case No. 14-18-01107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2020

Changchun Gaoxiang Special Pipes Co., LTD ( Golsun) v. Flexsteel Pipeline Technologies, Inc.

Appellant Golsun, a Chinese company, appealed the denial of its special appearance, which challenged personal jurisdiction in a Texas court. Appellee FlexSteel sued Golsun for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and other torts, alleging Golsun used FlexSteel's proprietary pipe design and manufacturing methods due to the unlawful disclosures by a former FlexSteel employee, Bin Chen, who later worked for Golsun. The trial court denied Golsun's special appearance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Chen's Texas contacts were attributable to Golsun as his employee, establishing minimum contacts, and that exercising jurisdiction comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceTrade Secrets MisappropriationBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceBreach of Fiduciary DutyAgency LawEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorMinimum Contacts
References
33
Case No. 07-10-0397-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2011

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. v. Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Inc. and American Cancer Society High Plains Division, Inc.

Appellant Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. appealed a summary judgment granted to Appellees Dallas Area Parkinsonism Society, Inc. and American Cancer Society High Plains Division, Inc. Chesapeake sought to recover bonus money paid for oil and gas leases, arguing the trial court erred in finding its claims were barred by the nature of the leases as quitclaim deeds. The appellate court examined whether the leases, containing a special warranty, functioned as a quitclaim deed or purported to convey title to the property. It also reviewed arguments concerning justifiable reliance and causation in negligent misrepresentation claims. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings, finding the leases were not quitclaims and that issues of fact remained regarding negligent misrepresentation.

Summary JudgmentOil and Gas LeasesBonus MoneyRescissionRestitutionMutual MistakeUnilateral MistakeUnjust EnrichmentNegligent MisrepresentationCovenant of Seisin
References
38
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02965 [138 AD3d 927]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Jardin v. A Very Special Place, Inc.

Jean-Paul Jardin, injured in a construction site fall from an unsecured ladder, sued A Very Special Place, Inc. (VSP) and Kang Suk Construction, Inc. under Labor Law § 240(1). VSP sought contractual indemnification from Kang Suk and Trinity Interior Coatings, Inc. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Jardin's summary judgment motion due to factual disputes regarding his site authorization. However, the court modified a prior order, granting VSP conditional summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Kang Suk, finding VSP free from negligence. VSP's claim against Trinity was denied as their indemnification agreement was signed after the accident and lacked retroactive intent.

Construction Site AccidentLadder SafetyLabor Law ViolationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentThird-Party LiabilitySubcontractor AgreementsRetroactive Contract ApplicationAppellate Division ReviewPersonal Injury Litigation
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,237 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