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
Sep 03, 1982

Cerrato v. Thurcon Construction Corp.

This case concerns a construction worker (plaintiff) who sustained serious injuries and sued 211 Thompson Corp. (owner) and Thurcon Construction Corp. (general contractor). Defendant 211 Thompson Corp. raised an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. After the Statute of Limitations had expired, plaintiff moved to strike this defense, while 211 cross-moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. Special Term referred the issue of service validity to a referee, but the plaintiff argued for a jury trial on this factual issue. The Appellate Division, Supreme Court, New York County, modified Special Term's order, directing a jury trial on the validity of the service, while otherwise affirming the original determination. The dissenting opinion argued that the right to a jury trial should not be conditioned on the stage of proceedings or the impact of dismissal on the Statute of Limitations, and furthermore, considered the question of authority to accept service as one of law, not fact.

Jury TrialService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRProcedural LawConstruction AccidentsNew York Courts
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Paragon Process Service, Inc.

Paragon Process Service, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which held the company responsible for unemployment insurance contributions for its process servers from 1978 to 1980. Paragon contended that these process servers were independent contractors, not employees, over whom it exercised no control beyond legal requirements. The court, referencing precedents like *Matter of 12 Cornelia St. (Ross)*, determined that the Board lacked a rational basis for classifying the process servers as employees. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision. The matter was then remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings consistent with this new finding.

Unemployment insuranceIndependent contractorProcess serversEmployer liabilityEmployee classificationAppellate reviewAdministrative decisionRational basis reviewLabor lawNew York law
References
2
Case No. No. 11-08-00293-CV; Trial Court Cause No. 6436-CX
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2009

in the Interest of S.N., a Child

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating a father's parental rights to his child, S.N. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination proceedings after S.N. and S.M. were removed from the home due to allegations of appellant's abuse towards S.M. and drug use by the parents. The appellant, the father of S.N., pleaded no contest to injury to a child and was sentenced to fifteen years confinement. The trial court terminated his parental rights based on findings that he engaged in criminal conduct resulting in his confinement for over two years and was convicted of injury to a child. On appeal, the appellant challenged the constitutionality of Texas Family Code Ann. Sections 263.405(b) and (i), arguing they violated his due process and equal protection rights by restricting appeals for indigent parents. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the statutes constitutional and that the appellant had not demonstrated a due process violation or presented a valid challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseDue ProcessConstitutional LawAccelerated AppealTexas Family CodeTexas Penal CodeIndigent ParentFrivolous AppealSufficiency of Evidence
References
7
Case No. 15-25-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2024

Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC, (In Its Own Capacity and as Assignee) v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Permian Processing, LLC

This is a joint petition for a permissive interlocutory appeal stemming from an order by the Texas Business Court, Eleventh Division. The underlying lawsuit, filed in Harris County in May 2021, involves Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC (and its assignees) against EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Permian Processing, LLC, concerning natural gas purchase agreements. The parties entered a 'Subsequent Agreement' on September 13, 2024, to bring their dispute to the Texas Business Court, leveraging a statutory provision for jurisdiction by agreement. They filed a Joint Notice of Removal, but the Trial Judge issued an order on December 20, 2024, remanding the case. The judge ruled that House Bill 19's Section 8 limits the Business Court's subject-matter jurisdiction to actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024, which this case predates. However, recognizing substantial grounds for differing opinions and the need for clear precedent for the nascent Business Court, the judge certified a permissive interlocutory appeal on the jurisdictional question and stayed the remand order pending the appeal's resolution.

Jurisdictional DisputeBusiness CourtInterlocutory AppealContract LawEnergy LawNatural GasTexas LawStatutory InterpretationPermissive AppealEffective Date
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide v. Transportation Insurance Company, CNA Insurance Company and Automatic Data Processing Inc.

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide has been involved in a protracted legal dispute since 1997, challenging the denial of his workers' compensation benefits. This opinion addresses his appeal of a 2014 trial court ruling, which declared him a vexatious litigant and imposed $3,000 in sanctions. Akinwamide contested the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, its plenary power, and the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, arguing his common-law claims remained pending. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction, its plenary power had expired, and Akinwamide's claims were indeed barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to repeated relitigation of issues previously decided in multiple prior appeals. The court also upheld the sanctions and vexatious litigant declaration, citing Akinwamide's continuous filing of frivolous pleadings and attempts to relitigate settled matters, which demonstrated an improper purpose including harassment.

Workers' Compensation DisputeVexatious LitigantSanctionsSubject-Matter JurisdictionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelPlenary PowerAppellate ReviewPro Se LitigationFrivolous Pleading
References
28
Case No. 14-02-00582-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

Akinwamide, Patrick Olajide v. Transportation Insurance Company, Automatic Data Processing Inc., and CNA Insurance Co.

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide filed a lawsuit after an unsuccessful workers' compensation claim against his employer and two insurance companies, alleging fraud, negligence, and fraudulent concealment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees based on limitations, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Akinwamide appealed, asserting the trial court improperly granted summary judgment by failing to negate his equitable tolling defense to limitations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Akinwamide failed to provide summary judgment proof for his tolling claims and that his lawsuit was untimely even if tolling applied. Thus, the appellees successfully established their limitations defense.

Summary judgmentLimitations periodRes judicataCollateral estoppelEquitable tollingFraudulent concealmentNegligenceWorkers' compensation claimAppellate reviewAffirmative defense
References
17
Case No. No. M2016-00483-COA-R3-CV (Trial Court: No. 151475III)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2017

Toni Jones v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Toni Jones, a former high school student, appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. Jones claimed that her removal from an Algebra I class and placement in a computer-based remedial program, leading to her not being promoted, violated her substantive and procedural due process rights to a public education under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, reasoning that the right to a public education does not guarantee a particular course placement or teaching method. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that courts generally do not intervene in school administrative decisions regarding teaching methods or course placement, as such decisions do not typically implicate a property interest in a specific type of education, only in avoiding exclusion from the educational process itself. Therefore, Jones's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

Education lawDue processStudent rightsSchool administrationJudicial reviewCivil rights (42 U.S.C. §1983)Motion to dismissConstitutional lawTennessee appellate courtsCourse placement policies
References
21
Case No. WR-82,828-01
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

Anderson, Rodney Young

Rodney Anderson, the applicant, files preliminary protective objections to the Trial Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a habeas corpus proceeding. Anderson contends that his due process rights were violated due to the State's suppression of favorable and material evidence under Brady v. Maryland. He objects to the Trial Court's conclusions regarding: 1) exculpatory witness statements from Paras and Brummet that would have shown officers were not identifiable as law enforcement during his arrest, crucial for the aggravated assault charge; 2) the undisclosed contingency fee agreement and true nature of the deal with confidential informant Jeffery Harmon, which could impeach Harmon's testimony; and 3) the extent of misconduct and significant role of crime scene investigator Caryn McAnarney in collecting evidence, impacting the chain of custody and integrity of the drug evidence. Anderson seeks relief, arguing that the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the jury's verdict and warrants reconsideration.

Habeas CorpusBrady ViolationSuppressed EvidenceDue ProcessExculpatory EvidenceImpeachment EvidenceConfidential InformantContingency FeePolice MisconductChain of Custody
References
13
Case No. 14-09-00377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2010

Michael Kennedy v. Turner Industries Group, LLC

Michael Kennedy, a pro se appellant, challenged the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Turner Industries Group, LLC. Kennedy's claims arose from Turner's denial of his workers’ compensation benefits, asserting due process violations, discrimination, bad faith, and other grievances. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Kennedy’s claims. This lack of jurisdiction was due to Kennedy’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not timely appealing the hearing officer's decision to the Division appeals panel. The court also dismissed Kennedy's due process arguments, clarifying that constitutional due process prohibitions apply to state action, not private entities like Turner.

Summary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesDue Process ClaimsJurisdictionExhaustion DoctrineAppellate ProcedurePro Se LitigationTexas Labor CodeEmployment Law DisputeBad Faith Claims
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schaver v. British American Insurance Co.

Appellant Anthony Schaver's workers' compensation case was dismissed with prejudice by the trial court for failing to comply with sanctions. The sanctions were imposed because Schaver repeatedly falsified information under oath regarding his post-injury employment during the discovery process. He failed to disclose two employers, Chem Coast, Inc. and Control Petro-Chem Inspection Company, even after being confronted with evidence. The trial court ordered him to pay $9800 in costs and attorney's fees, with dismissal as the penalty for non-compliance. Schaver did not pay, leading to the case's dismissal. On appeal, Schaver challenged the sanctions as an abuse of discretion and a violation of due process. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion given Schaver's intentional misconduct and rejecting his due process arguments.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscovery AbuseSanctions ImposedFalsified InformationEmployment DisclosureCase DismissalAbuse of Discretion ReviewDue Process RightsAppellate AffirmationTrial Procedure
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 15,994 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