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

Hand v. Stevens Transport, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan

Jean and Howard Hand appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment which dismissed their claims for health care benefits against the Stevens Transport, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan as time-barred. The Hands argued that the Plan's failure to comply with ERISA's notification requirements should invalidate or toll the contractual limitations period. The appellate court found that while the Plan's notice was non-compliant, it still provided reasonable notice of partial denial, and the Hands failed to exercise due diligence. The court concluded that the twenty-seven month contractual limitations period was reasonable and was not tolled by the Plan's ERISA non-compliance or the pursuit of administrative remedies. Therefore, the Hands' claims were barred, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

ERISAHealth Insurance BenefitsContractual Limitations PeriodStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDenial of BenefitsEquitable TollingAdministrative RemediesNotice RequirementsEmployee Benefit Plan
References
19
Case No. 14-19-00539-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. v. Lowery Masonry, LLC

Appellant Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. (HWC) appealed a summary judgment that denied it recovery from Appellee Lowery Masonry, LLC, on a guaranty agreement. Lowery's president had signed a "Letter of Guarantee" to ensure prompt medical treatment for an injured employee, Sandro Tovar, and to pay HWC's usual and customary fees. Lowery later argued an exception applied because it had workers' compensation insurance with Texas Mutual Insurance Company, leading the trial court to grant summary judgment. The appellate court determined that Lowery's interpretation of the exception was unreasonable as it would render the phrase "additional payment" meaningless within the contract. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings, concluding that Lowery had not conclusively established its entitlement to summary judgment.

Contract LawGuaranty AgreementSummary JudgmentWorker's Compensation InsuranceMedical BillingAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationTexas LawHarris CountyFourteenth Court of Appeals
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. v. SGS Control Services, Inc.

Charles Reagan was injured at work and treated by Hand & Wrist Center. SGS North America, his employer, signed a "Letter of Guarantee" promising to pay for treatment if workers' compensation insurance didn't cover it. SGS failed to pay, leading Hand & Wrist to sue for breach of contract. SGS filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing Hand & Wrist failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court granted the plea, and Hand & Wrist appealed, contending SGS did not invoke its workers' compensation coverage and that exclusive remedies provisions do not apply to healthcare providers. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that SGS invoked its workers' compensation coverage when it obtained it, and Hand & Wrist was required to exhaust administrative remedies with the Texas Department of Insurance-Workers’ Compensation Division before filing suit, as the Division has exclusive jurisdiction over medical fee disputes.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesSubject Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionBreach of ContractHealthcare Provider ReimbursementExclusive RemediesTexas Labor CodeMedical Fee DisputeAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 01-12-00216-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2014

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery L.P. v. Maintenance Supply Headquarters, LP

Appellants Hand & Wrist Center, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery, L.P. appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Maintenance Supply Headquarters, L.P., concerning a breach of contract claim. The dispute arose from a "Letter of Guarantee" signed by Maintenance Supply for medical services provided to an injured employee, Daniel Contreras, whose workers' compensation claim was denied. Maintenance Supply argued estoppel and the applicability of the Labor Code's exclusive remedies provision. The Court of Appeals found the estoppel defense inapplicable and, crucially, ruled that Labor Code section 408.001(a)'s exclusive remedies provision applies only to employees and their beneficiaries, not to health care providers. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentWorkers' compensationExclusive remedyHealth care providersStatutory interpretationTexas Labor CodeEstoppelLetter of GuaranteeAppellate review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Devon Knitwear Co. v. Levinson

The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike an affirmative defense presented by the defendant labor union. The union argued that the plaintiffs came to court with 'unclean hands' due to their alleged refusal to bargain collectively, constituting an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiffs contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over unfair labor practices, as this power is exclusively vested in the National Labor Relations Board. The court clarified that while the NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to *prevent* unfair labor practices, the court retains its inherent equitable power to deny relief to a party with 'unclean hands'. Therefore, the court found the union's defense legally sufficient and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike.

EquityInjunctionUnclean HandsNational Labor Relations ActLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionAffirmative DefenseMotion to StrikeCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas State Federation of Labor v. Brown & Root, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from a temporary injunction granted against numerous labor unions and councils at the instance of Brown & Root, Inc. The injunction aimed to prevent unlawful activities like picketing, boycotting, and forcing a 'closed shop' policy, which violated Texas statutes including the 'Right To Work Act' and Art. 5154f and Art. 5207a, V.A.C.S. The unions argued a lack of jurisdiction, the need for administrative exhaustion, 'unclean hands' of Brown & Root, and infringement of free speech rights. The court affirmed its jurisdiction, overruled the exhaustion and 'unclean hands' arguments, and found sufficient evidence of unlawful objectives to justify the injunction. The injunction was reversed for Bricklayers No. 12 due to lack of evidence against them, and modified for other appellants to clarify the scope of permissible picketing and publicizing.

Labor DisputeTemporary InjunctionSecondary BoycottPicketingRight To Work ActClosed ShopFreedom of SpeechUnfair Labor PracticesUnion ActivitiesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2001

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.

Proctor & Gamble Company (P&G), a worldwide distributor of consumer products, sued numerous parties including Quality King Distributors, Inc., Omnisource International, Inc., and Neal Rose, alleging they were involved in mixing, bottling, selling, and distributing counterfeit Head & Shoulders shampoo, in violation of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act. P&G moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for trademark infringement. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, arguing P&G had unclean hands, abandoned its trademark rights, and that Neal Rose lacked individual liability. The court granted P&G's motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants used a counterfeit of P&G's trademark in commerce, which created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court denied the defendants' cross-motions, concluding that the unclean hands defense was inapplicable, P&G had not abandoned its trademark, and there was sufficient evidence for Rose's personal liability.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActCounterfeit GoodsSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DefenseTrademark AbandonmentCorporate Officer LiabilityHead & ShouldersConsumer ConfusionInterstate Commerce
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Uto v. Job Site Services Inc.

Plaintiffs Paulino Uto, Jose Edwin Lopez, and Jose Aas, former employees of Job Site Services Inc. (JSS), filed a collective action against JSS and its owner, John O'Shea. They allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, claiming unpaid overtime, partial payment for hours worked, and unpaid minimum wage. The plaintiffs sought a protective order against defendants' discovery requests for social security numbers and income tax returns, arguing irrelevance and potential prejudice regarding their immigration status. Defendants contended the information was necessary for an "unclean hands" defense, implying the plaintiffs were involved in a tax evasion scheme. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling that immigration status and social security numbers are generally undiscoverable in FLSA cases due to irrelevance and the risk of intimidation or deportation. Furthermore, the court determined that tax returns were not relevant and lacked a compelling need for disclosure, and the "unclean hands" defense was inapplicable as the plaintiffs' claims were legal, not equitable.

Protective OrderDiscovery DisputeImmigration StatusFair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawUnclean Hands DefenseSocial Security NumbersIncome Tax ReturnsWage and Hour
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jara v. Strong Steel Door, Inc.

Carlos Huerta, an undocumented worker, sued Strong Steel Door, Inc., and David Wei, claiming they failed to pay him the prevailing wage required by public works contracts. Strong Steel Door had terminated Huerta's employment after discovering he provided false documentation. Strong Steel Door sought summary judgment, arguing the employment contract was illegal due to the false documentation and that Huerta was precluded from recovery by the doctrine of 'unclean hands.' The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was affirmed. The appellate court held that neither the contract nor the work performed was illegal, and Strong Steel Door was not injured by Huerta's false documentation as they received the bargained-for labor. Additionally, Strong Steel Door failed to meet its burden of proof regarding payment of the prevailing wage.

breach of contractsummary judgmentprevailing wageundocumented workerillegal contract defenseunclean hands doctrineImmigration Reform and Control Actemployment lawappellate reviewcontract enforceability
References
15
Case No. 04-09-00148-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2009

Central Texas Orthopedic Products, Inc. v. Andrew Espinoza and Howmedica Osteronics Corp. D/B/A Stryker Orthopedics

Central Texas Orthopedic Products, Inc. (CTOP) sued Andrew Espinoza for breach of contract and fiduciary duty, and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. d/b/a Stryker Orthopedics (Stryker) for tortious interference. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Espinoza and Stryker, and a jury found Espinoza breached fiduciary duty but awarded no damages. On appeal, CTOP challenged the summary judgments and attorney's fees awarded to Espinoza. The appellate court found the trial court erred in applying the unclean hands doctrine to CTOP's claims as the alleged misconduct was separate from the disputed contract. The court also found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Espinoza's entitlement to compensation due to his alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyTortious InterferenceSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DoctrineNon-Compete AgreementCompensation AgreementTexas Payday ActAppellate ReviewReversed and Remanded
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,556 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