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

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. 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. 14-0530
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2015

Bnsf Railway Company v. James E. Phillips

This Reply Brief on the Merits by BNSF Railway Company contests the appellate court's judgment affirming a jury's findings in a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) case involving James E. Phillips. BNSF argues that Phillips failed to provide legally sufficient and reliable expert testimony to establish causation for his spinal injuries, particularly concerning epidemiological studies. The brief also asserts that Phillips's FELA claim was untimely, as evidence indicated his awareness of the injury and its work-related cause before the statutory deadline. Additionally, BNSF challenges the finding of liability under the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) based on general complaints and argues for the erroneous exclusion of contributory negligence and certain rebuttal evidence. BNSF requests the Supreme Court of Texas to reverse the appellate court's judgment and render judgment in its favor or remand for a new trial.

FELACausationExpert TestimonyEpidemiological EvidenceTimelinessStatute of LimitationsLocomotive Inspection Act (LIA)Contributory NegligenceEvidentiary RulingsAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. W2016-02288-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2017

Kevin Cash v. Turner Holdings, LLC a/k/a Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning the application of the doctrine of res judicata. Kevin Cash filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Turner Holdings LLC a/k/a Prairie Farms Dairy Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The initial lawsuit was dismissed 'in its entirety' by the trial court. Cash subsequently filed a second lawsuit asserting the same causes of action, but the trial court granted summary judgment to Turner Holdings, finding the claims barred by res judicata due to the prior dismissal being a final adjudication on the merits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the November 20, 2014, dismissal order was a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes.

Res JudicataClaim PreclusionSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissRetaliatory DischargeFraudIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewFinal Judgment
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferrell v. Cigna Property & Casualty Insurance Co.

Ferrell, an employee of APAC-Tennessee, Inc., sought workers' compensation benefits for hearing loss, alleging it stemmed from prolonged exposure to loud noise at work. The employer argued the condition was congenital. The trial court initially found the claim barred by the statute of limitations and, on merits, concluded the injury was not work-related. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the statute of limitations ruling, finding Ferrell had exercised reasonable diligence. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal on the merits, determining that the medical evidence, despite a recent work-related diagnosis, did not outweigh a long-standing contrary diagnosis. Additionally, the Court addressed procedural irregularities in the trial court's appointment of a Clerk and Master as a de facto judge but upheld the validity of the proceedings.

Workers' CompensationHearing LossStatute of LimitationsCausationMedical EvidenceDe Facto JudgeJudicial ProcedureTennessee LawGradual InjuryPreexisting Condition
References
13
Case No. 2019-07-0191
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2020

Gillum, Mary v. Dollar General Corporation

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed and remanded a trial court's decision concerning an employee, Mary Gillum, who alleged neck and shoulder injuries from a falling dog food bag at work. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court found the authorized treating physician's opinion sufficient to establish that Ms. Gillum would likely prevail on the merits. The court ordered Dollar General Corporation to provide a panel of physiatrists for nonoperative treatment and awarded temporary disability benefits. Dollar General appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of an injury arising primarily out of employment and that the physician's report did not meet the 50% causation requirement. The Appeals Board, however, found no merit in the employer's arguments, clarifying that a 'lesser evidentiary standard' applies at expedited hearings compared to a hearing on the merits.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingCausation StandardMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsCervical StrainPre-existing ConditionAuthorized Treating PhysicianAppeals Board DecisionRemand
References
6
Case No. 02-10-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2011

TDIndustries, Inc. v. Citicorp North America, Inc.

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging the trial court’s denial of TDIndustries, Inc.’s (TDI) motion to dismiss a negligence case brought by Citicorp North America, Inc. Citicorp sought damages against TDI related to the installation of an SCR exhaust scrubber, alleging negligent acts in inspection, verification, and testing. TDI argued that Citicorp's claims implicated professional engineering services, thus requiring a certificate of merit under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Ann. § 150.002, which Citicorp failed to provide. The appellate court concluded that Citicorp's negligence claims arose from the provision of professional engineering services, making the certificate of merit mandatory. The court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to dismiss Citicorp’s claims against TDI.

Interlocutory AppealMotion to DismissProfessional ServicesCertificate of MeritEngineering NegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Occupations CodeAbuse of DiscretionStatutory ConstructionPleadings
References
15
Case No. 13-18-00498-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2019

David Barrett v. Berry Contracting, L. P., Elite Piping & Civil, Ltd., and Govind Development, LLC

David Barrett sued Berry Contracting, L.P., Elite Piping & Civil, Ltd., and Govind Development, LLC after sustaining severe burn injuries at a refinery. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Berry and Elite based on the exclusive remedy defense, asserting they were statutory employees of Valero under workers’ compensation insurance provided by Valero. The trial court also granted Govind's motion to dismiss due to Barrett's failure to file a certificate of merit with the initial complaint naming Govind. On appeal, Barrett challenged both rulings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment for Berry and Elite, concluding that Valero had 'provided' workers’ compensation coverage. It also affirmed the dismissal of claims against Govind, finding Barrett failed to contemporaneously file a certificate of merit.

Summary Judgment AppealExclusive Remedy DefenseStatutory Employee StatusCertificate of Merit RequirementMotion to Dismiss AppealTexas Labor Code § 408.001Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 150.002Appellate ProcedureContractual Obligation for InsuranceSubcontractor Immunity
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Roland (In Re Roland)

This post-trial decision concerns an adversary proceeding initiated by the plaintiff, Marjorie Thompson, Esq., against her former husband, the debtor, in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The plaintiff sought to declare the debtor's obligation to pay her attorney's fees non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) or (a)(15). These fees stemmed from state court litigation where the plaintiff compelled the debtor to cooperate in the sale of a jointly owned property, and from the current bankruptcy proceedings. The court analyzed whether an enforceable right to attorney's fees existed under the parties' separation agreement's indemnification clause. It concluded that the indemnification provisions did not cover the specific breach committed by the debtor, thus failing to establish a contractual right to attorney's fees. As a result, the court ruled there was no "debt" to be deemed non-dischargeable and dismissed the adversary proceeding on its merits.

Bankruptcy LawNon-Dischargeability of DebtAttorney's FeesSeparation AgreementIndemnification ClauseContract InterpretationRooker-Feldman DoctrineStipulation of LawChapter 7Adversary Proceeding
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 16,123 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