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. 01-14-00515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Kosoco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) filed this supplemental brief in response to Kosoco, Inc.'s reply brief. METRO argues that Kosoco's contention regarding material and substantial impairment of access during construction was waived, as it was not raised in their initial brief and lacked sufficient legal or evidentiary support. METRO asserts that any inconveniences during construction were normal and did not constitute a material and substantial impairment of access, nor is a decrease in business profitability relevant to a takings claim. The brief cites several Texas cases and rules of appellate procedure to support its arguments. METRO requests that the Court of Appeals affirm the trial court's order dismissing Kosoco's takings claim.

Appellate BriefWaiver of ArgumentTakings ClaimImpairment of AccessConstruction ImpactsEvidentiary SupportLegal PrecedentSummary JudgmentTrial Court OrderAffirmation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. Lara

This case involves an appeal from a workers' compensation verdict where the central issue was the admissibility of an expert witness's testimony. The plaintiff, Juan Lara, presented medical records from Dr. Joseph Neustein, stating a 25 percent impairment, while the defendant, American Home Assurance Company, contended a 10 percent impairment based on Dr. Marco Ochoa's testimony. American Home sought to exclude Dr. Neustein's opinion due to Lara's failure to verify supplemental discovery responses, as required by Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate court ruled that unsworn supplemental interrogatory responses identifying an expert were insufficient to avoid automatic exclusion. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding the error harmful, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Expert Witness TestimonyDiscovery RulesVerification of ResponsesTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureImpairment RatingWorkers' Compensation AppealExclusion of EvidenceHarmful ErrorAppellate ReviewRemand
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Craig v. New York Telephone Co.

This appeal stems from a wrongful death action where the plaintiff's decedent died of a heart attack after working at a fire scene. The plaintiff sought discovery from the defendant, Telephone Company, regarding the fire and workplace conditions. The defendant appealed Justice Wright's order to comply with discovery demands. The appellate court modified the order, striking plaintiff's demand number two as overly broad and burdensome, while affirming demands three and four as sufficiently specific, thus partially affirming and partially modifying the original order.

DiscoveryInspectionWrongful DeathWorkplace SafetyFire IncidentAppellate ReviewProtective OrderBurdensome DemandsSpecificity in DiscoveryCivil Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walter Ray Culp, III v. Board of Professional Responsibility for the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Attorney Walter Ray Culp, III, previously suspended for five years due to an attempted extortion conviction, sought reinstatement of his law license. The extortion involved brokering witness testimony for a substantial fee. After serving a nineteen-month prison sentence and the five-year suspension, Culp petitioned for reinstatement. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility and the Chancery Court for Williamson County both denied his request. The denials were based on Culp's failure to demonstrate moral qualifications, legal competency, and that his reinstatement would not harm the integrity of the bar or public interest. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed these decisions, citing Culp's lack of credibility, his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions, and the severe nature of his original crime.

Attorney disciplineLaw license reinstatementProfessional misconductAttempted extortionMoral qualificationsLegal competencyCredibility assessmentJudicial reviewAppellate decisionLegal ethics violation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburg v. Jones

This case involves an appeal by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (National Union) against an order of sanctions for abuse of discovery. The original suit was filed by Jones, appealing an industrial accident board award in a worker’s compensation claim. The trial court sanctioned National Union for evasive responses to discovery requests, ordering them to respond to admissions and pay $1,200 in attorneys' fees. On appeal, the court found that National Union had not waived its right to appeal the sanctions due to an explicit reservation in the agreed judgment. The court affirmed the trial court's order of sanctions, finding no abuse of discretion, and also denied Jones' cross-point seeking damages for a frivolous appeal.

Discovery AbuseSanctionsAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationAttorneys' FeesDue ProcessWaiver of AppealFrivolous AppealTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Appellate Procedure
References
10
Case No. ADJ8595235
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

Thomas Carroll vs. Lehigh Hanson Inc., Liberty Mutual Insurance

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's initial petition for removal as procedurally improper, as it challenged a notice of intent rather than a final order. The WCAB also denied the defendant's supplemental petition for removal, which sought to overturn the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) order closing discovery. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying the supplemental petition, especially since the WCJ left open the possibility of allowing the deposition after trial. A dissenting commissioner argued that the deposition of Dr. Dell was necessary to update his opinion and ensure a complete record for apportionment, similar to Dr. Russell's deposition.

Petition for RemovalNotice of IntentionQuash DepositionPQMEMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscovery ClosureSupplemental PetitionDr. DellDr. RussellSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. WR-80,923-02
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2015

Harris, Roderick

Roderick Harris, a death row inmate, sought a writ of prohibition to prevent the disclosure of his trial files, which were ordered by the trial court in response to his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The State of Texas filed a response, arguing that Harris's claims waived attorney-client and work-product privileges, thereby justifying the disclosure order. The State contended that the trial court possessed the discretion under Article 11.071 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to compel discovery of relevant files. It requested the Court of Criminal Appeals deny Harris's motion, emphasizing that the scope of waiver for privileged information is determined by the trial court based on relevancy to the ineffective assistance claims. The case highlights a dispute over the balance between a defendant's privilege and the state's need for evidence in habeas corpus proceedings.

Capital MurderWrit of ProhibitionHabeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork-Product PrivilegeDiscovery OrderTrial FilesRestraintsExtraneous Offense Evidence
References
70
Case No. 01-20-00465-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2020

in Re VCPalmsWestheimer Development LLC & Parawest Community Development LLC

Relators, VC PalmsWestheimer, LLC and Parawest Community Development, LLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel Judge Daryl Moore to vacate an order denying their motion for leave to designate a responsible third party. The underlying case involves Seyedali Parsafar suing the Relators for negligence, gross negligence, premises liability, and DTPA violations following an assault at an apartment complex. The Relators sought to designate Jaeylen Deshawn Turner or an unknown individual (John Doe) as a responsible third party. The trial court denied the motion, believing the disclosure was untimely as it was not made before the statute of limitations ran or in the initial answer. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion, clarifying that disclosure obligations for responsible third parties arise when discovery responses are due, not necessarily before the statute of limitations or in the original answer when no discovery was served, and conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus.

MandamusResponsible Third PartyTimelinessStatute of LimitationsDiscoveryPleading RequirementsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate RemedyTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. ADJ9355637
Regular
Apr 21, 2017

JESUS TORRES vs. GREENBRAE MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's request to file supplemental briefing regarding his psychiatric injury. The applicant seeks reconsideration of an award that excluded permanent disability from his psychiatric injury, arguing it was a direct result of his physical injury, not a consequence, and that his case qualifies as a "catastrophic injury" or involved a violent act. The Board is allowing the defendant ten days to respond to this new argument, which was not previously addressed at trial. This procedural step aims to ensure due process and full consideration of the applicant's claims.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpermanent disabilitycatastrophic injuryLabor Code section 4660.1psychiatric injuryMilpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman)supplemental briefingviolent act
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,040 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