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

Apresa v. Montfort Insurance Co.

Justice Larsen dissents, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff the opportunity to reopen evidence for a "simple, technical point essential to his case." The dissent highlights the second prong of the standard for reopening evidence under Tex.R.Civ.P. 270, emphasizing that discretion should be liberally exercised to fully develop a case in the interest of justice. Justice Larsen applies the four factors from Hill v. Melton: decisiveness, no undue delay, prevention of injustice, and diligence. The dissent concludes that the proffered testimony was decisive, its reception would not cause undue delay, and refusing it resulted in injustice, particularly in a workers' compensation case where laws should be liberally construed. The dissent also argues that the majority misapplies the diligence requirement, which should apply after a party rests and closes its case, not during the case-in-chief, especially when evidence had not yet been closed.

Appellate ProcedureReopening EvidenceTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionInterest of JusticeDiligence RequirementWorkers' Compensation LawTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureDissenting OpinionManifest Injustice
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cummings-Fowler v. Suffolk County Community College

Michelle Cummings-Fowler initiated a lawsuit against her former employer, Suffolk County Community College (SCCC), and supervisors, alleging race discrimination under Title VII, NYHRL, and Section 1983. Following partial dismissals of earlier claims, the plaintiff sought to amend her complaint to introduce Title VII retaliation claims against SCCC. She contended that SCCC retaliated by hiring her estranged husband, despite awareness of existing orders of protection, and subsequently by informing him that his termination was due to her complaints, which allegedly led to an attempted murder attempt on her. The court evaluated SCCC's opposition based on undue delay and futility. Ultimately, the court, while acknowledging the delay, granted the plaintiff's motion to amend, concluding that SCCC failed to demonstrate undue prejudice and that the proposed retaliation claims were plausible and not futile under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge for limited discovery on the new claims.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1983New York Human Rights LawHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to AmendRule 15(a)Rule 15(d)Pleading
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 1998

Lebovits v. Chase Manhattan Bank (In Re Lebovits)

Daniel Lebovits, a Chapter 7 debtor, filed an adversary proceeding to discharge his student loan debt, arguing it imposed an "undue hardship." The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, found that repayment of the $49,040.12 debt would indeed cause undue hardship for Lebovits and his seven dependents. The court applied the three-prong Brunner test, determining that Lebovits could not maintain a minimal standard of living, his financial difficulties would persist, and he had made good faith efforts to repay. Consequently, the court granted the discharge of the student loans.

Student Loan DischargeUndue HardshipBankruptcy Chapter 7Brunner TestDebtor's DependentsFinancial HardshipMinimal Standard of LivingGood Faith RepaymentReligious FreedomFamily Expenses
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Leake

Appellee H. B. Leake sued appellant Texas Employers’ Insurance Association to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award and seek compensation for a 1935 back injury. Leake filed his claim nine years later, alleging "good cause" due to initial belief of trivial injury and doctors misdiagnosing his condition as rheumatism, a claim supported by a jury verdict. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Leake’s testimony, even when viewed favorably, failed to establish "good cause" for the extensive delay. The court highlighted that Leake knew of his injury from the start, suffered continuous pain, and notably withheld injury details from his consulted physicians. Furthermore, a two-year period following a varicose vein operation lacked any documented "good cause" for continued delay in filing, solidifying the court's decision to render judgment for the appellant.

Delayed Claim FilingGood Cause ExceptionStatute of LimitationsWorkman's CompensationBack InjuryMedical MisdiagnosisPermanent Total IncapacityAppellate ReviewReversed and RenderedIndustrial Accident Board
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1997

Host Marriott Corp. v. North

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' causes of action for contractual indemnification and common-law contribution. The denial was based on a contract providing for mutual indemnification between the parties. Furthermore, the defendant had failed to inform the plaintiff of a potential Workers' Compensation defense in an underlying action. The court rejected the defendant's argument that a motion to amend the answer to assert this defense would have been untimely. It emphasized that both Federal and State practice require leave to amend pleadings to be freely given in the absence of undue delay, bad faith, or undue prejudice.

indemnificationcontributionworkers' compensation lawfederal rules of civil procedurestate practiceleave to amendmotion to dismissunderlying actionmutual indemnificationuntimely defense
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rifenburgh v. James

Petitioner was injured in an automobile accident while en route to an employer-directed physical examination and subsequently sought workers' compensation benefits. He also commenced a third-party action, which was settled without the workers' compensation carrier's consent or timely judicial approval. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge closed the case after petitioner failed to obtain judicial approval. Petitioner later attempted to reopen the claim by seeking nunc pro tunc judicial approval, but Supreme Court denied the application due to undue delay. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial, concluding that the delay was attributable to the petitioner's own neglect, thereby barring future workers' compensation benefits.

Automobile AccidentThird-Party ActionSettlement without ConsentJudicial ApprovalNunc Pro TuncUndue DelayPetitioner NeglectWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCourse of EmploymentAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 14-06-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2008

Hornell Brewing Co., Inc. (a/K/A Arizona) v. Modesto Tony Lara

The dissenting opinion argues that the trial court's denial of Hornell's motion for new trial should be vacated. It contends the trial court operated under misconceptions regarding the requirements for a Craddock hearing, specifically focusing on the defendant's process for handling service rather than the accident or mistake prong. Furthermore, the dissenting justice highlights that Hornell offered to proceed to trial promptly and, on appeal, offered to cover Lara's attorney's fees, satisfying equitable principles to avoid prejudice or undue delay to the plaintiff. These factors, alongside the plaintiff's lack of demonstrated substantial injury from the delay, suggest the motion for a new trial should have been granted. Therefore, the dissenting justice advocates for vacating the judgment and remanding the case.

Default judgmentmotion for new trialCraddock testprejudiceundue delayattorney's feesappellate procedureTexas lawcivil procedurediscovery
References
10
Case No. E2010-00244-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2010

Joy C. Lindsey v. Walgreen Company

Joy C. Lindsey sued Walgreen Company, Robert Cortney, and Kane David Stackhouse after David Z. Lindsey, Sr. was fatally shot by Stackhouse in a Walgreen's parking lot. Walgreen and Cortney sought to amend their answer to include a cross-claim for indemnification against Stackhouse, but the Trial Court denied their motion. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether leave to amend should have been granted. The appellate court found no undue delay, lack of notice, bad faith, or undue prejudice to the plaintiff, and determined the amendment was not futile given the applicability of joint and several liability. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court's decision, allowing Walgreen and Cortney to assert their cross-claim against Stackhouse.

Interlocutory AppealCross-claimMotion to AmendIndemnificationComparative FaultJoint and Several LiabilityProcedural LawAbuse of DiscretionForeseeable Intentional ConductNegligence
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1991

Alkatabi v. United States Department of Justice Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiffs Christine and Hasan Alkatabi sued the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and several INS examiners, including Frank Lucas and John Marsh, alleging racial discrimination and Fifth Amendment violations. They claimed that the defendants caused undue delays in processing Mrs. Alkatabi's immediate relative petition for her husband, Hasan Alkatabi, a native of Yemen. The delays were attributed to issues with verifying Mr. Alkatabi's Yemen divorce decree and processing a separate "special agricultural worker" application. The United States District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, determining that sovereign immunity protected the INS and official-capacity examiners, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent for individual-capacity claims. Subsequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reargument was denied.

Immigration LawRacial DiscriminationFifth AmendmentDue ProcessSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityFederal Tort Claims ActBivens ActionQualified ImmunityINS
References
20
Case No. 2021-03-0377
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 2021

Hamon, Brandon v. Dickens Turf And Landscape Supply

Brandon Hamon, an employee, sought attorney's fees at an expedited hearing after his employer, Dickens Turf and Landscape Supply, allegedly caused an undue delay in approving treatment for a left-shoulder injury. Hamon had previously sustained a right-shoulder injury at work, leading to surgery. The left-shoulder injury, initially questioned for its work-relatedness, was later deemed by Dr. Hovis to be primarily related to the original right-shoulder injury, prompting approval for surgery. Hamon argued this delay warranted attorney's fees of $1,725.00. However, Judge Brian K. Addington denied the request at this interlocutory stage, determining that the circumstances were not "highly unusual" as required by precedent for such an award. The Court noted that the issue of attorney's fees could be revisited at the case's conclusion.

Attorney's FeesInterlocutory StageShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearMedical Treatment DelayExpedited HearingEmployer's ExaminationCausationPanel of PhysiciansDenial of Benefits
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,842 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