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
Apr 29, 1975

Brewery Workers Pension Fund v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

In an action for a declaratory judgment and for specific performance of a certain agreement, defendants appeal from a judgment and order (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 29, 1975, which, *inter alia,* granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. Judgment and order affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements. There are no issues requiring a trial.

Declaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentAppealAffirmedQueens CountySupreme CourtContract LawJudgment and OrderAppellate Division
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2004

In re Human Performance, Inc.

Human Performance, Inc., doing business as Woodstock Spa & Wellness, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had assessed Human Performance, Inc. for additional unemployment insurance contributions for massage therapists and aestheticians, classifying them as employees. Woodstock argued they were not employees. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Woodstock maintained control over important aspects of the therapists' work, including setting fees, scheduling services, handling complaints, providing workers’ compensation coverage, and supplying the workspace, equipment, and supplies.

Unemployment InsuranceMassage TherapistsAestheticiansEmployer-Employee RelationshipWellness CenterDay SpaIndependent ContractorWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor LawAppeal Board Decision
References
1
Case No. 05-17-01187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2018

Linda Douglas v. Taylor Sims and Dallas Performance, LLC.

This case involves an appeal from a jury trial where Dallas Performance, LLC (DP) and Taylor Sims prevailed against Linda Douglas. Linda had sued DP for conversion, wrongful detention of her vehicle, and other claims after DP retained her car due to unpaid repair and storage fees. The jury found in favor of DP and Sims, awarding them $9,000.00 for breach of contract regarding storage fees and $3,200.00 in quantum meruit for motor work. The appellees, DP and Sims, argue that the trial court's judgment, which was entered in accordance with the jury's findings, should be affirmed. They assert their right to a possessory lien on the vehicle and that Linda agreed to the storage fee policy and additional work performed on her car.

Motor Vehicle RepairPossessory LienStorage FeesQuantum MeruitBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesConversionWrongful DetainerDallas PerformanceLinda Douglas
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. DASS, INC.

The case concerns an appeal by Benjie Smith d/b/a Oak Cliff Metals (Appellant) against DASS, Inc. (Appellee) after a dispute over a real property purchase agreement. Smith sought specific performance or a declaratory judgment for equitable title, alleging the trial court erred in denying these remedies despite the jury finding a breach of contract and awarding damages. The appellate court denied Smith's amended motion for rehearing, concluding that Smith failed to prove full compliance with the contract, specifically regarding obligations to work out title details with the EPA, and his readiness to perform. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ’s judgment denying specific performance and equitable title.

Contract DisputeReal PropertySpecific PerformanceEquitable TitleBreach of ContractDamagesJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureBurden of Proof
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mattlage v. Mattlage

This case involves a dispute over the devise of "Home Place" property in Marvin Mattlage's will. Marvin's will devised Home Place to Karl Mattlage, but Marvin and his wife Celeste later contracted to sell it to Mark Mattlage and Robert Snowden. After Marvin's death, Karl sued Celeste for a declaratory judgment that the will prevails, while Celeste sued Karl and Mark/Robert for specific performance, asserting the contract prevails. The trial court sided with Celeste, ruling that the devise was adeemed and Celeste was entitled to specific performance. Karl appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting Celeste's motion for summary judgment because the devise was not adeemed, specifically challenging the contract's enforceability due to contingencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that a waiver letter removed the contract's contingencies, making it specifically enforceable and thus confirming the ademption of the devise.

AdemptionEquitable ConversionWill InterpretationContract LawSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentProperty DeviseReal Estate ContractWaiver of ContingencyAppellate Review
References
27
Case No. 03-15-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2015

Bob E. Woody v. J. Black's, LP And J. Black's GP, LLC

Bob E. Woody initiated a lawsuit against J. Black's, L.P. and J. Black's, G.P., L.L.C. concerning a commercial sublease, seeking its termination. J. Black's counterclaimed for breach of contract, asserting that Woody had improperly rejected their lease extension and declared them in default. The trial court initially granted multiple partial summary judgments in favor of J. Black's, finding Woody in breach and dismissing all of his claims. On appeal, the Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed Woody's breach but remanded for a determination of whether J. Black's was ready, willing, and able to perform, a prerequisite for specific performance. Upon remand, the trial court found J. Black's met this condition and awarded specific performance of the sublease and attorney's fees to J. Black's.

Commercial LeaseSublease AgreementBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceAttorney's FeesTexas LawReal Estate DisputeLease ExtensionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
38
Case No. No. 10-06-00260-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2007

Karl Paul Mattlage v. Celeste Mattlage, Individually and as of the Estate of Marvin Mattlage, Mark Mattlage, and Robert Snowden

This appeal concerns a dispute over the devise of "Home Place" in Marvin Mattlage's will to Karl Mattlage. After making the will, Marvin and his wife Celeste contracted to sell Home Place to Mark Mattlage and Robert Snowden. Following Marvin's death, Celeste refused to honor the will, leading Karl to sue for a declaratory judgment that the will prevails. Celeste counter-sued, arguing the contract prevails and seeking specific performance from Mark and Robert. The cases were consolidated, and the trial court granted Celeste's summary judgment motion, ruling the devise was adeemed and Celeste was entitled to specific performance. Karl appealed, contending the devise was not adeemed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that financing contingencies were waived, making the contract specifically enforceable, and thus the devise was adeemed.

AdemptionEquitable ConversionWill ContestContract for Sale of LandSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawReal PropertyEstate Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cate v. CNA Insurance Companies

Jeffrey L. Cate sued CNA Insurance Companies for wrongful denial of long-term disability benefits under an ERISA plan. Cate, a computer analyst/manager, developed health issues and filed a disability claim after exhausting short-term benefits. CNA denied long-term benefits, contending physicians indicated Cate could perform his occupation in a different work setting, thus not meeting the "total disability" definition. Cate appealed, asserting his inability to perform his specific occupational duties due to his severe condition. The District Court denied both parties' summary judgment motions, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding Cate's disability status due to the lack of evidence on his specific job duties and his ability to perform them, and thus remanded the case to the plan administrator for further development of the record.

ERISA BenefitsLong-term DisabilityDisability Claim DenialSummary JudgmentRemandMedical EvidenceOccupational DutiesMental Health DisabilityPlan Administrator ReviewDe Novo Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Performance Insurance Co. v. Frans

This case concerns an appeal by Performance Insurance Company, a workers' compensation carrier, against a trial court's judgment regarding the apportionment of a settlement. The carrier had paid death benefits to the survivors of Michael D. Frans and subsequently intervened in a lawsuit filed by the beneficiaries against third-party tortfeasors. The trial court approved a settlement of $200,000 and apportioned the proceeds between Ms. Frans and her son, Michael Jr., prior to reimbursing the carrier's $104,404 lien. The carrier argued this apportionment improperly reduced its statutory subrogation recovery and credit. The appellate court found the trial court erred by not following the statutory sequence for payment, which dictates costs and attorney's fees first, then carrier reimbursement, and finally any excess to beneficiaries. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation LienSettlement ApportionmentDeath BenefitsThird-Party TortfeasorStatutory InterpretationDouble RecoveryReimbursementMedical MalpracticeBeneficiary Claims
References
7
Case No. 2013-1461 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Performance Plus Med., P.C. v. Nationwide Ins.

This case involves an appeal by Performance Plus Medical, P.C., acting as an assignee, against Nationwide Ins. The plaintiff sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Term affirmed this order, ruling that the defendant's timely verification request tolled the insurer's time to pay or deny the claim, thus rendering the plaintiff's action premature due to a failure to respond to the request. Additionally, the court found that the defendant had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case for denying claims related to the first cause of action based on the workers' compensation fee schedule, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentVerification requestInsurer's time to payPremature actionWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court orderFirst-party benefitsAssigned claims
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 7,407 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