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. 348-162629-94
Regular Panel Decision

D.N.S. v. Schattman

Relator D.N.S., M.D. (Dr. S.) seeks mandamus relief against an order by the trial court compelling him to produce a narrative report to Michael Anderson, the real party in interest. Dr. S. prepared this report for his professional liability insurer after receiving a healthcare liability claim notice from Anderson, who had sued his employers for wrongful termination, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress related to a work injury and drug screen. Anderson later added Dr. S. as a defendant and requested the narrative report during discovery, which Dr. S. objected to based on attorney-client, party-communication, and investigative privileges. The trial court ordered the production, citing that the report was prepared in anticipation of trial and testimony, and formed the basis of Dr. S.'s mental impressions as an expert, ruling it discoverable under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166b(2)(e)(l). The appellate court disagreed, holding that the specific rule for tangible reports, 166b(2)(e)(2), should apply, and found no evidence that the report was prepared in anticipation of Dr. S.'s testimony as an expert, thus concluding the trial court abused its discretion. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus is conditionally granted, requiring the trial court to vacate the order compelling production of the privileged narrative report.

MandamusDiscovery DisputePrivileged CommunicationAttorney-Client PrivilegeParty-Communication PrivilegeExpert Witness TestimonyHealthcare Liability ClaimWorkers' CompensationDrug ScreenAbuse of Discretion
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. M2000-02902-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2003

Rebecca McMurry v. Metro Government of Nashville

Rebecca McMurry, an employee, sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County after a slip and fall at work resulted in a knee injury. She sought damages under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act for lost earning capacity, pain, and suffering. The trial court awarded $24,000, attributing fault to Metro but finding the injury an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, and also awarded $2,858.30 in discretionary costs, excluding a $900 expert trial preparation fee. McMurry appealed, arguing for increased damages and the inclusion of the expert fee. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding of exacerbation and confirming that expert witness preparation fees are not recoverable discretionary costs.

Governmental Tort LiabilitySlip and FallKnee InjuryPre-existing ConditionExacerbation of InjuryDamages AwardAppellate ReviewExpert Witness FeesDiscretionary CostsCausation
References
33
Case No. Bronx County Indictment No. 976/81
Regular Panel Decision

Dellwood Foods, Inc. v. Abrams

Dellwood Foods, Inc., indicted for antitrust violations under the General Business Law, moved to quash post-indictment subpoenas issued by the Attorney-General to its sales personnel. Dellwood contended these subpoenas constituted an abuse of process, arguing their sole purpose was to gather evidence for the pending trial. The court, presided over by Judge Lawrence J. Tonetti, affirmed Dellwood's standing to challenge the subpoenas. While acknowledging the Attorney-General's investigatory powers do not abate post-indictment, the court applied a 'dominant purpose' test, requiring subpoenas to further legitimate investigations rather than merely prepare for trial. Following an *in camera* review, the court determined the subpoenas were for a valid ongoing investigation, not solely for trial preparation. Consequently, Dellwood's motion to quash the subpoenas was denied.

Antitrust LawSubpoena EnforcementAbuse of ProcessGrand Jury ProcedureCorporate StandingCriminal IndictmentInvestigatory PowersDominant Purpose TestGeneral Business LawNew York Law
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder Communications v. Magana

The appellees sued their former employer, Snyder Communications, L.P., for breach of contract and fraud, alleging a failure to pay commissions and bonuses as per employment contracts. The trial court certified the case as a class action, and Snyder appealed the certification order and adopted trial plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the certification or the trial plan. The court concluded that common issues predominated, the class action was a superior method for resolution, and the class representatives and counsel were adequate. The appellate court also addressed Snyder's arguments regarding the evidence considered by the trial court and the trial plan's ability to address defenses.

Class Action CertificationEmployment Contract DisputesBreach of ContractCommon Law FraudInterlocutory AppealsAppellate Review StandardsAbuse of Discretion StandardClass Action CommonalityClass Action PredominanceAdequacy of Class Representation
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deblo, Inc. v. State

This case is an appeal from a trial court order granting a temporary injunction against appellants for maintaining a public nuisance at 166 West Mount Houston, Harris County, Texas. The trial court found appellants were using the property for prostitution and ordered it closed or a $5,000 bond posted. Appellants argued that padlocking premises is only permissible after a trial on the merits, not a temporary order. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court highlighted that an alternative (posting a bond) was offered and the injunction only prevented illegal use, not legitimate use of the property. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact regarding the property being used for prostitution.

Nuisance AbatementTemporary InjunctionPublic NuisanceProstitutionAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTrial Court OrderPadlocking OrderBond RequirementFactual Sufficiency
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. 98-03885
Regular Panel Decision

Authorlee v. Tuboscope Vetco International, Inc.

The appellants, who were settling plaintiffs in a mass tort silicosis case, sought to overturn the trial court's denial of their motion for new trial. They argued that their agreed judgment was void due to an undisclosed aggregate settlement and alleged fraud by their trial lawyers and the appellees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court concluded that there was no actual fraud by the appellees as the appellants admitted a lack of reliance. Additionally, the court found no conspiracy to commit fraud in the litigation context. Finally, the court determined that the settlements were not aggregate settlements due to individual negotiations and offers, thus upholding the validity of the agreed judgment.

Aggregate SettlementFraud AllegationsMotion for New TrialAppellate ReviewProfessional MisconductMass Tort LitigationSilicosis ClaimsSettlement AgreementsConspiracyReliance
References
18
Case No. NO. 14-19-00384-CV (Trial Court Cause No. 2018-40587)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2021

in the Interest of I.D.R., and A.B.R., Children

This appeal originates from a suit to establish a parent-child relationship concerning I.D.R. and A.B.R., initiated by the Office of the Attorney General of Texas. The trial court entered a default judgment against Rejadia Rogers, the mother, for failing to appear, adjudicating issues of child support, custody, and access rights. Mother's motion for a new trial was subsequently denied. On appeal, Mother argued that her failure to appear was not intentional due to car trouble and medical complications, and she presented a meritorious defense. The appellate court, applying the Craddock test, found that Mother satisfied all three elements, thus concluding the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Consequently, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Default JudgmentParent-Child RelationshipChild SupportChild CustodyAccess RightsMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseUnintentional Failure to Appear
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of G.B.A.

Glenn Gary Armstrong appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial after the County Court at Law of Hopkins County denied his petition to terminate or modify a child-support wage-withholding order for his ex-wife, Marsha Cochran. Armstrong's attorney failed to appear for the original hearing, forcing Armstrong to represent himself. The trial court denied his petition and subsequently overruled his motion for a new trial, which was based on the Craddock test for default judgments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the Craddock test was inapplicable because Armstrong was present and participated in the hearing, thus it was not a default judgment.

Child SupportWage WithholdingMotion for New TrialDefault JudgmentCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewFamily LawTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 14,452 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