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

Canas v. Centerpoint Energy Resources Corp.

Justice Christopher partially concurs and partially dissents from Chief Justice Frost's and Justice Jamison's opinions regarding CenterPoint's liability limitations under its tariff. She agrees that the tariff limits liability for negligence and strict liability but disagrees with aspects of Frost's analysis. Christopher concurs with remanding the intentional misrepresentation claim but believes negligent misrepresentation should be affirmed. She disagrees with Frost's disposition of the gross-negligence claim, arguing the entire issue should be remanded, emphasizing that tariff limitations for gross negligence and willful misconduct are against public policy and unenforceable. Christopher agrees that negligence per se claims don't survive tariff limitations but challenges Frost's reasoning, asserting that the tariff must yield to conflicting federal or state statutes or regulations. However, she ultimately finds no actual conflict between the tariff's liability limitation and the cited regulations, concluding that the elimination of liability for negligence per se is valid.

Tariff Liability LimitationsNegligence ClaimsStrict Liability ClaimsGross NegligenceMisrepresentation ClaimsNegligence Per SePublic PolicyPre-Injury ReleasesSummary JudgmentConcurring and Dissenting Opinion
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Providence Memorial Hospital, and Michael D. Compton, M.D. v. Elizabeth Rivera, as Next Friend for M.R.

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Complaint of Wepfer Marine, Inc. for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability

Wepfer Marine, Inc. filed a petition to limit liability after Jose Ramon Gonzalez was injured during barge demolition. Gonzalez and his wife, along with Liberty Mutual, sued Wepfer in state court, leading Wepfer to seek federal limitation of liability. Claimants moved to dismiss the federal action, citing lack of admiralty jurisdiction due to the barge's 'dead ship' status and untimeliness of Wepfer's petition. The court granted dismissal for the main barge, ET-715, ruling it was a 'dead ship' withdrawn from navigation. However, it denied dismissal concerning the crane barge, finding potential causation through a broken crane cable, thereby retaining jurisdiction for that aspect. The court also found Wepfer's petition timely, as prior correspondence from claimants did not constitute sufficient written notice to trigger the statutory six-month filing period.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawLimitation of Liability ActVessel StatusDead Ship DoctrineAdmiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)TimelinessWritten Notice of Claim
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. McDonald

This declaratory judgment action involves American Home Assurance Company seeking to limit its liability under professional liability policies issued to social workers Rory M. McDonald and Helene Ina Anisfeld, who are defendants in an underlying malpractice action brought by Randy Kamhi. Kamhi alleges sexual misconduct and professional negligence against McDonald, and vicarious liability and direct negligence against Anisfeld as McDonald's partner. American Home sought summary judgment to limit indemnification to $25,000 for sexual misconduct claims and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment in part, affirming the $25,000 limit for McDonald's sexual misconduct and for punitive damages for both McDonald and Anisfeld. However, the court denied the request to terminate American Home's duty to defend McDonald upon exhausting the $25,000 limit and granted Kamhi's cross-motion to stay further summary judgment applications until discovery in the underlying action is complete. Crucially, the court found that extending the sexual misconduct coverage limit to non-sexual malpractice claims violates New York public policy.

Professional Liability InsuranceSexual MisconductInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic Policy ArgumentTherapist MalpracticeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyUnconscionability Claim
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1983

Complaint of Geophysical Service, Inc.

This case involves petitioners Geophysical Service, Inc. (GSI) and Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI) seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability following the sinking of their chartered vessel, M/V ARCTIC EXPLORER, in Canadian territorial waters, resulting in 13 deaths. The petitioners also moved to dismiss the consolidated claims based on forum non conveniens. The Court, presided over by District McDonald, first determined that Canadian substantive law, particularly the Canadian Shipping Act, governed the controversy. Applying the factors from Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert and Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, the Court granted the petitioners' motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, finding Canada to be the more appropriate forum due to substantial contacts and interests. The dismissal was conditioned on GSI and TI submitting to Canadian jurisdiction, waiving any statute of limitation defense, and agreeing to satisfy any judgment rendered by a Canadian court.

Maritime LawLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensCanadian LawAdmiralty JurisdictionChoice of LawShipping ActWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryVessel Sinking
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. White

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appealed a worker’s compensation judgment concerning Ira Gillis White, who sustained a back injury. A jury found White totally incapacitated for three months and permanently partially incapacitated thereafter, establishing his weekly earning capacity at $150 during the partial incapacity period. Electric Mutual contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of White’s pre-injury wages and that the jury’s finding on earning capacity was unsupported or against the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining that worker’s compensation aims to compensate for loss of earning capacity, not just actual wages, and that post-injury earnings do not conclusively prove capacity. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's assessment of White's diminished earning capacity, considering his pain and physical limitations despite continued employment.

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin

Regonald T. Clayton, the plaintiff-appellant, sought total and permanent disability benefits after an on-the-job eye injury led to its removal. He claimed general injuries including neurosis and central nervous system damage, arguing these were compensable under workmen’s compensation law. The defendant-appellee, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, contested these additional claims, asserting only the eye loss was compensable. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, limiting benefits to the specific eye injury. On appeal, the court reviewed evidence, including psychiatric testimony confirming a severe chronic anxiety reaction and injury to the central nervous system. The appellate court found sufficient probative evidence to support the plaintiff's general injury theories, emphasizing that neurosis causing physical disability is compensable in Texas. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationEye InjuryNeurosisCentral Nervous System InjuryTraumatic NeurosisTotal Permanent DisabilityAppellate ReviewReversed and RemandedMedical Expert TestimonyEvidentiary Issues
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otero v. Cablevision

Plaintiff Norberto Otero sued Neiss Management Corporation, 82 Rockaway Limited Liability Company, and Cablevision of New York under Labor Law § 240 (1), § 200, and common-law negligence after falling from a defective ladder while installing cable television service. The court granted Otero's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Cablevision, finding Cablevision acted as a general contractor and the work constituted "altering" a building, with the defective ladder being a proximate cause. However, Otero's motion against Neiss and 82 Rockaway was denied due to a factual dispute over their authorization of the work, and his Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against them were dismissed as they did not supervise or control the work. The defendants' cross-motion for indemnification from Cablevision was also denied due to insufficient evidence of Cablevision's negligence or direct supervision.

Labor LawScaffolding and LaddersSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityAltering a BuildingElevation RiskProximate CauseCommon-Law IndemnificationSafe WorkplaceIndustrial Code
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 8,914 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