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

Harber v. Leader Federal Bank for Savings

Judith Harber sued Leader Federal Bank for Savings after her ex-husband made unauthorized transactions on her account, including converting a Large Denomination Certificate (LDC) to an Instant Access account and forging her signature for withdrawals. The trial court partially granted summary judgment to both parties, ruling some claims were barred by a one-year statute of limitations (Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-4-406), but found the bank acted in bad faith regarding two withdrawals. The appellate court affirmed that Harber ratified the conversion by seeking interest benefits and that the one-year limit applied to six unauthorized withdrawals, affirming the finding of bad faith and prejudgment interest. However, the court reversed, holding that the one-year limitation did not apply to the conversion transaction itself or claims regarding interest checks, as these did not involve 'items' or 'debit entries' as defined by the statute. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Forged SignatureUnauthorized WithdrawalsBank LiabilityUniform Commercial CodeUCC Article 4Statute of LimitationsRatification DoctrineGood Faith RequirementPrejudgment InterestBreach of Contract
References
37
Case No. Misc. Docket No. 07-9197
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2007

Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee v. American Home Assurance Co.

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether liability insurers engage in the unauthorized practice of law by using staff attorneys to defend insureds. The Court held that insurers may use staff attorneys if the insurer's and insured's interests are congruent, meaning they are aligned in defeating the claim with no conflict of interest. Staff attorneys must fully disclose their affiliation with the insurer to the insured. The Court rejected the argument that insurers' use of staff attorneys inherently creates irreconcilable conflicts or violates various professional conduct rules or statutes, emphasizing a lack of empirical evidence of harm. The judgment of the court of appeals was modified accordingly and, as modified, affirmed.

Unauthorized Practice of LawStaff AttorneysInsurance DefenseAttorney-Client RelationshipConflict of InterestCorporate Practice of LawTexas Supreme CourtLegal EthicsProfessional JudgmentInsurer Duty to Defend
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Schatz Fed. Bearings Co., Inc.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) sought to withdraw from the Creditors’ Committee in the bankruptcy estate of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., Inc. The Creditors’ Committee opposed the withdrawal, aiming to preserve its appeal of an earlier ruling that deemed the UAW eligible to serve. The court granted the UAW's application to withdraw, citing that a creditor's willingness to serve is a key factor in committee composition and that compelling service is not justified when the creditor no longer has an interest in the case, especially since the debtor's business has ceased and its assets were liquidated. The court also noted the UAW's pension rights were guaranteed by ERISA and it had negotiated a new contract with the asset buyer, making its position on the committee academic.

BankruptcyCreditors' CommitteeUnion RepresentationMotion to WithdrawMootness DoctrineERISADebtor LiquidationJudicial DiscretionAdequate RepresentationVoluntary Service
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lake v. M.P.C. Trucking, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the law firm Lewis & Stanzione after the Supreme Court denied their motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs, including Charles Lake. Plaintiffs initially sought damages for injuries but later expressed dissatisfaction with their attorney, Ralph Lewis, questioning his competence, veracity, and loyalty, despite also requesting his continued representation due to inability to find new counsel. Lewis sought to withdraw due to limited potential recovery and irreconcilable differences, exacerbated by plaintiffs rejecting settlement offers and insisting on trial against his advice. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting the law firm's motion for renewal and permitting them to withdraw as counsel, citing the deteriorated attorney-client relationship.

Attorney-Client RelationshipWithdrawal of CounselProfessional StandardsIrreconcilable DifferencesMotion to RenewAppellate ReviewGreene CountyWorkers' Compensation ClaimDamages LitigationSettlement Offers
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ickes v. Sayville Animal Hospital

Claimant, a veterinary technician, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits. The carrier sought to suspend payments due to the claimant's failure to provide a work status affidavit. At a hearing, the carrier introduced the issue of voluntary withdrawal from the labor market without prior notice to the claimant, which the WCLJ promptly dismissed. Despite the WCLJ's ruling, the Workers' Compensation Board later modified the decision, finding voluntary withdrawal and rescinding benefits. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's rescission of benefits, ruling that the claimant was denied due process as she had no notice or opportunity to address the voluntary withdrawal issue. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market WithdrawalDue ProcessNotice of IssueAppellate ReviewRemandBenefit SuspensionAdministrative LawWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Modification
References
4
Case No. 2016-03-0449
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2016

Rodgers, Katherine v. NHC Healthcare

Katherine Rodgers, an employee, filed an Expedited Hearing Request seeking temporary disability benefits and reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses after a work-related right shoulder injury. The employer, NHC Healthcare, and its carrier, Premier Group Insurance, had provided authorized medical panels, but Rodgers sought additional treatment without their authorization due to ongoing pain. The Court found that Rodgers' decision to seek unauthorized care was not reasonable, as she failed to properly notify her employer and did not establish the necessity and reasonableness of the associated charges. Furthermore, the Court concluded that she was not entitled to temporary disability benefits because no authorized medical provider had taken her completely off work, and she did not substantiate her claims regarding work restrictions. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Judge denied Ms. Rodgers' claims for both unauthorized medical treatment expenses and temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical ExpensesUnauthorized TreatmentExpedited HearingWork InjuryShoulder InjuryCertified Nursing AssistantEmployer ObligationsEmployee Responsibilities
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2004

Sojka v. 43 Wooster LLC

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a construction worker's injury. The defendant's insurance carrier, Indian Harbor Insurance Company, disclaimed coverage due to a delayed accident report. Subsequently, the law firm hired by the insurer to defend the defendant moved to withdraw as counsel. Initially, the motion was granted, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The court ruled that a motion to withdraw is an improper method to challenge an insurer's disclaimer of coverage, which should instead be resolved through a declaratory judgment action.

Motion to withdrawDisclaimer of coverageInsurance carrierDeclaratory judgment actionAttorney-client relationshipAppellate court reversalConstruction accidentProperty owner liabilityTimeliness of reportingLegal procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Smith

Chief Justice Brister's dissenting opinion, including a concurring appendix, vigorously opposes the court's decision to withdraw its previously issued opinions. He argues that withdrawing the opinions disserves the public interest and perpetuates the flawed reasoning of Tamez v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, which he believes incorrectly restricts the concept of insurable interest. Brister asserts that the Texas Legislature intended a liberal interpretation of insurable interests, not a rigid adherence to outdated common law definitions from 1942. He highlights that employers face significant pecuniary losses from employee deaths, even for "service-level" employees, and should therefore possess an insurable interest, urging the court to reconsider its approach in light of modern insurance practices and legislative intent.

Insurable InterestWorkers' CompensationMass TortStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionCommon LawInsurance CodePecuniary BenefitEmployer LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 885 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