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. M2020-00964-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Guidesoft, Inc. D/B/A Knowledge Services v. State Protest Committee, State of Tennessee

Knowledge Services challenged the award of a statewide contract to Covendis, protesting the Central Procurement Office's (CPO) dismissal of its bid due to an insufficient protest bond. The CPO, and subsequently the State Protest Committee, determined that Knowledge Services failed to submit the correct bond amount, calculated as 5% of the State's estimated maximum liability of $190,000,000 under Tenn. Code Ann. § 12-3-514(d)(2). The Chancery Court for Davidson County upheld this decision, emphasizing the statute's intent to protect the State's exposure and limiting judicial review to the record. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, concluding that the CPO correctly applied the protest bond statute and that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in denying additional evidence.

Bid protestGovernment contractsState procurementProtest bondStatutory interpretationAdministrative lawCommon law writ of certiorariJudicial reviewAbuse of discretionLegislative intent
References
24
Case No. 24-0005
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2025

Red Bluff, LLC v. Nicole Tarpley

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed the interpretation of "actual knowledge" under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 306a(4) regarding deadlines for post-judgment motions. Petitioner Red Bluff, LLC, argued for a deadline extension, asserting that its counsel did not have actual knowledge of a judgment until March 14, despite the clerk sending an email notice on February 8. The trial court and court of appeals denied the extension, equating receipt of the email with actual knowledge. The Supreme Court reversed, clarifying that "actual knowledge" requires subjective awareness and is distinct from constructive knowledge. Since the clerk did not provide notice by the required first-class mail, and counsel's sworn statement of lack of awareness was uncontradicted, Red Bluff was entitled to the extension. The case was remanded for consideration of Red Bluff's post-judgment motions.

Actual KnowledgeConstructive KnowledgePost-judgment MotionsDeadline ExtensionRule 306aNotice of JudgmentCivil ProcedureAppellate JurisdictionPlenary JurisdictionElectronic Notice
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Milner v. Country Developers, Inc.

The Special Disability Fund appealed decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which imposed liability on the Fund for a claimant's injuries. The Board found that the employer, Country Developers, continued to employ the claimant, a carpenter, with knowledge of his pre-existing permanent physical impairment, triggering liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The claimant suffered a fracture of the nose and a hip dislocation in 1964, having a history of three ruptured disc surgeries and other conditions. The appeal centered on whether the employer had sufficient knowledge of the claimant’s permanent condition. Testimony from the employer’s foreman, Mr. Pahlck, indicated awareness of the claimant's back issues, including wearing a back brace and being favored by co-workers. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, reiterating that employer knowledge is a question of fact for the Board, and its findings, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityPre-existing Permanent ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityFracture of NoseHip DislocationRuptured Discs
References
3
Case No. 06-01-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

Ramon Reyes v. Storage & Processors, Inc. and Leonel Guerrero

Ramon Reyes, a forklift operator, sued his employer Storage & Processors, Inc. (S&P) and co-worker Leonel Guerrero for negligence after suffering a workplace injury. S&P, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, offered an employee benefit plan which Reyes signed, purporting to waive common-law claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for S&P and Guerrero, citing waiver, ratification, and estoppel. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana held that the benefit plan, which sought to relieve the employer of liability for its own negligence, was subject to fair notice requirements (conspicuousness and express negligence doctrine). Given S&P's concession that the plan failed the conspicuousness requirement, the agreement was unenforceable unless Reyes had actual knowledge. The appellate court found a fact issue regarding Reyes' actual knowledge, making summary judgment on waiver improper. Furthermore, the court determined that ratification or estoppel would also require Reyes to have full knowledge of his common-law rights, which the defendants failed to conclusively prove for summary judgment. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.

Workplace InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentWaiver of ClaimsRatificationEstoppelFair Notice RequirementsConspicuousnessExpress Negligence DoctrineCommon Law Claims
References
25
Case No. 04-07-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2009

City of San Antonio v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company as Subrogee of Fernando Hernandez

The case involves an interlocutory appeal where the City of San Antonio (Appellant) challenged the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. Texas Mutual Insurance Company and Fernando Hernandez (Appellees) had sued the City after Hernandez was injured when a sinkhole collapsed while he was operating a Bobcat tractor on city property. The City asserted governmental immunity, arguing it had not waived it under various theories including ordinary premises defect, gross negligence, or special defect. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the City had not waived immunity. It found no evidence of the City's actual knowledge of the specific dangerous condition, no extreme risk or subjective awareness for gross negligence, and determined the sinkhole was not a special defect because Hernandez was not an ordinary user of the parkway. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the claims against the City for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Governmental immunityInterlocutory appealPlea to jurisdictionPremises liabilitySpecial defectOrdinary defectGross negligenceActual knowledgeSubject matter jurisdictionTexas Tort Claims Act
References
15
Case No. 08-18-00017-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2021

State v. Rafael Navarrette

Rafael Navarrette, a firefighter-EMT, sustained injuries in 2014 after falling from a highway overpass while responding to an accident. He sued the State of Texas and Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) for premises liability and negligence under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). Navarrette's initial claims against TXDOT were dismissed for failure to provide timely statutory notice. He later filed a petition for a bill of review, presenting newly discovered evidence suggesting TXDOT had 'actual notice' of his claim through an area engineer. The trial court denied TXDOT's motion to dismiss the bill of review, leading to this interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that TXDOT's knowledge of the injury and fall was not sufficient to constitute 'actual notice' under the TTCA, as it did not subjectively alert TXDOT to its potential fault as ultimately alleged by Navarrette, thus lacking subject-matter jurisdiction.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityActual NoticeBill of ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceInterlocutory AppealJudicial ReviewGovernmental ImmunityStatutory Notice
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2000

Tevdorachvili v. Chase Manhattan Bank

Plaintiff Nikolai Tevdorachvili sued Chase Manhattan Bank, alleging unauthorized wire transfers amounting to $157,000 from his checking account in August 1998, claiming forgery and lack of knowledge. He brought suit against Chase for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of New York Banking Law § 676, breach of implied duties of good faith and fair dealing, conversion, negligence, and gross negligence. Defendant Chase moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, insufficiency of service of process, and failure to state a claim. The court denied Chase's motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for insufficiency of service, finding plaintiff to be an alien for diversity jurisdiction and exercising discretion to waive the 120-day service rule. However, the court granted Chase's motion to dismiss all causes of action except for the breach of contract claim, finding no independent basis for the other claims under New York law.

Wire Transfer FraudBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionService of ProcessMotion to DismissFiduciary DutyNew York Banking LawConsequential DamagesDeclaratory Judgment
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kwitek v. United States Postal Service

Edward Kwitek, a driver for Midwest Transport, Inc., sued the United States Postal Service (USPS) under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for injuries sustained while loading mail at a post office, alleging negligence by USPS employees. The government moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that Kwitek was an independent contractor and his injury resulted from a discretionary function, thereby making the FTCA's waiver of sovereign immunity inapplicable. The court denied the government's motion. It ruled that the independent contractor exception did not apply because the alleged negligence was on the part of USPS employees failing to perform their regular duties. Furthermore, the discretionary function exception was also inapplicable, as the alleged conduct was not policy-driven but rather a failure to follow established protocol. The case was then referred for a settlement conference.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionIndependent Contractor ExceptionDiscretionary Function ExceptionNegligenceUnited States Postal ServicePersonal InjuryLoading Dock InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tripodi v. Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

Plaintiff Anthony Tripodi initiated a lawsuit against Local Union No. 38 and its counsel, Dubin, for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case, initially filed in Connecticut, was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The central jurisdictional challenge arose from the Union's status as an unincorporated association with members in both Connecticut and New York, thereby destroying complete diversity of citizenship. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules, determined that New York law governed the substantive claims, which rendered the Union an indispensable party. Consequently, due to the lack of complete diversity and the indispensability of the Union, the court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, advising the plaintiff to seek redress in state courts where both defendants could be pursued in a single action.

Malicious ProsecutionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConnecticut Unfair Trade Practices ActSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionIndispensable PartyChoice of LawNew York LawConnecticut LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hightower v. United States

Willie Hightower, a federal employee, sued the United States and three individual federal officers for alleged injuries from a 1999 arrest at a VA hospital campus. Hightower sought money damages under state tort laws via the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and constitutional claims under Bivens, despite having already received benefits under the Federal Employee's Compensation Act (FECA) for the same incident, which he certified as work-related. The court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It ruled that FECA provides the exclusive remedy for federal employees' work-related injuries, thereby precluding FTCA claims against the United States. Furthermore, Bivens claims against the United States are barred by sovereign immunity, and against individual federal employees, they are precluded by the comprehensive remedial schemes of FECA and the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA).

Federal Employee Compensation ActFederal Tort Claims ActBivens ActionSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionExcessive ForceFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionSlanderLibel
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 3,053 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