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. 2-02-069-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2003

Michael Ronney Vincent v. Audrey Vincent

This case concerns an appeal by Michael Ronney Vincent from a default divorce judgment granted to Audrey Vincent, which included spousal maintenance and a portion of Vincent's pension benefits. Vincent challenged the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial, arguing his failure to file an answer was due to accident or mistake, not conscious indifference. The Second District Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Vincent's actions, including his failure to follow up with counsel or inquire about new representation despite receiving relevant correspondence, constituted conscious indifference. The appellate court also upheld the awards for attorney's fees and spousal maintenance, concluding they were adequately supported by the pleadings.

Default JudgmentSpousal MaintenanceDivorceDue ProcessConscious IndifferenceNew Trial MotionAttorney's FeesMarital PropertyPension BenefitsTexas Law
References
16
Case No. ADJ9918511
Regular
Feb 23, 2016

VINCENT SARDELLA vs. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Vincent Sardella's Petition for Reconsideration. This decision upholds the findings of the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, which was based on observing the witness's demeanor. No substantial evidence was presented to overturn the WCJ's ruling.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportcredibility determinationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Orange County Sanitation DistrictVINCENT SARDELLAadministrative law judgesubstantialitydeny reconsideration
References
1
Case No. E2003-01966-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2004

Gwinn Fayne v. Teresa Vincent

Purchasers Gwinn and Alfred Fayne sued sellers Teresa and David Vincent and Re/Max Real Estate Professionals, seeking rescission for tortious misrepresentation and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act regarding a defective septic system. The trial court rescinded the transaction but dismissed Re/Max, finding its salesperson, Teresa Vincent, was an independent contractor. On appeal, the Court affirmed the independent contractor finding for Re/Max. However, it modified the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to properly place the parties in their pre-transaction status quo regarding expenses and for reconsideration of the purchasers' attorney's fees, depending on the basis of the rescission.

Real Property LawRescission of ContractTortious MisrepresentationTennessee Consumer Protection ActIndependent Contractor vs. AgentAttorney's FeesEquitable RemediesStatus Quo AnteSeptic System FailureReal Estate Litigation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Michael Anthony Vincent J.

The Family Court of Bronx County initially dismissed petitions to terminate the parental rights of Lillian T. and Kevin Vincent J. concerning their children, Michael Anthony Vincent J. and Rose Antionette J. This appellate court reversed that decision, finding clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner agency, St. Christopher-Ottilie and the Commissioner of Social Services, made diligent efforts to reunite the family. The respondents were found to have permanently neglected their children by failing to maintain consistent contact and refusing to cooperate with necessary services. Consequently, the appellate court reinstated the petitions, entered findings of neglect, and remanded the matter for a dispositional hearing.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectDiligent EffortsSocial Services LawFamily Court AppealBronx CountyFoster Care PlacementParental Non-cooperationEvidentiary StandardsAppellate Reversal
References
1
Case No. 113 AD3d 1184
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2014

Vincent v. Landi

Plaintiff David Vincent fractured his ankle on black ice at defendant Angelo T. Landi's restaurant. A jury found Landi negligent and awarded damages for past pain and suffering and lost profits, but no future damages. Both parties cross-appealed, with plaintiffs arguing inadequate damages and defendant arguing insufficient proof of notice. The court affirmed the finding of negligence, citing defendant's actual knowledge of a recurring icy condition. However, the court found the jury's damage awards for past and future pain and suffering and lost profits to be inadequate, materially deviating from reasonable compensation. A new trial on damages was ordered unless defendant stipulated to increased awards for past pain and suffering ($75,000), future pain and suffering ($100,000), past lost profits ($54,017.50), and future lost profits ($203,018.85).

NegligencePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilitySlip and FallBlack IceDamagesPain and SufferingLost ProfitsAnkle FractureOrthopedic Surgery
References
37
Case No. 08-06-00071-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2007

Vincent Maes and Cynthia Maes and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group

Vincent and Cynthia Maes and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania appealed the dismissal of a health care liability suit against El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group (EPOSG). The Maeses alleged negligence and vicarious liability against EPOSG after Vincent Maes suffered severe complications following back surgery by Dr. Paul Cho, an EPOSG neurosurgeon. The trial court dismissed all claims against EPOSG, finding the expert reports insufficient to address EPOSG's breach of the standard of care, even for vicarious liability claims. On appeal, the Court reviewed whether an expert report was necessary for vicarious liability claims and if the severance of claims against EPOSG was proper. The appellate court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the dismissal of all claims against EPOSG and the severance.

Health Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeExpert Report SufficiencyVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorDismissal with PrejudiceSeverance of ClaimsSpinal Surgery ComplicationsNeuroscienceOrthopedic Surgery Group Liability
References
17
Case No. 08-11-00331-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2012

Vincent Maes and Cynthia Maes, as Next Friend of Isabel G. Maes, a Minor Child and the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group, P. A.

Vincent Maes sustained a spinal injury in 2000 from a motor vehicle accident, leading to a lumbar laminectomy in 2001 by Dr. Paul Cho, an employee of El Paso Orthopaedic Surgery Group, P.A. (EPOSG). Following the surgery, Mr. Maes allegedly experienced severe neurological issues. In 2010, Vincent and Cynthia Maes, acting as next friend for their minor daughter Isabel, along with The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICTSP), filed a lawsuit against EPOSG, asserting claims for Isabel's loss of parental consortium and alleging vicarious liability for Dr. Cho's negligence. EPOSG sought summary judgment, contending that Isabel's claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to Mr. Maes's original claim and also by the prior dismissal of Mr. Maes's claim with prejudice in 2004. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of EPOSG. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that claims for loss of parental consortium are derivative in nature and are consequently extinguished when the statute of limitations on the injured parent's underlying claim expires or when that underlying claim is dismissed with prejudice.

Medical MalpracticeParental ConsortiumSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDerivative ClaimsDismissal with PrejudiceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeHealth Care LiabilityMinor's ClaimsAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Vincent I.

Petitioner initiated a Family Court Act article 10 proceeding in May 1991, alleging respondent sexually abused his son, Vincent, and abused/neglected his stepchildren, Benjamin and Bradford. Family Court found respondent sexually abused Vincent, relying on Vincent's out-of-court statements corroborated by expert validation testimony from Carol George. George, along with child protective worker Paula Herman, refuted claims of coaching, testifying that Vincent's behaviors were consistent with child sexual abuse syndrome. Following findings, Family Court ordered respondent's supervision, a mental health evaluation, and counseling; respondent subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the findings of abuse and neglect were supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

child abusesexual abusechild neglectFamily CourtTompkins Countycorroborationexpert testimonyout-of-court statementspsychological evaluationjudicial discretion
References
4
Case No. W2011-00342-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2012

Paul Vincent Giannini v. Amanda Proffitt

Paul Vincent Giannini, a volunteer police officer for the City of Memphis, sustained injuries in an accident caused by Amanda Proffitt. His medical expenses were covered by the City's "on-the-job injury" (OJI) program. Giannini then filed a claim under his personal uninsured motorist policy with SafeCo Insurance Company of Illinois. SafeCo denied coverage, citing a policy provision that reduces liability by sums paid under workers' compensation or "similar law," arguing the OJI program fell into this category. The trial court sided with SafeCo, granting summary judgment in their favor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the City's OJI program is indeed a "similar law" to workers' compensation for the purpose of the insurance policy's limitation of liability clause.

Insurance PolicyUninsured Motorist CoverageLimitation of LiabilityOn-the-Job Injury ProgramWorkers' Compensation SimilaritySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationVolunteer InjuryMedical Expenses
References
34
Case No. CV-24-1858
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

In the Matter of the Claim of Vincent Laboccetta

Claimant Vincent Laboccetta appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's decisions regarding his schedule loss of use (SLU) award for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. Initially, a WCLJ awarded 30% SLU based on the claimant's surgeon's opinion. However, the Board modified this to 20% SLU, crediting the employer's orthopedic consultant, Carl Weiss, who they determined properly applied the 2018 New York Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support the 20% SLU, as the Board has the authority to resolve conflicting medical opinions and accept those consistent with the impairment guidelines. The denial of the claimant's application for reconsideration was also affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Carpal Tunnel SyndromeMedical Impairment GuidelinesConflicting Medical OpinionsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceOrthopedic SurgeonMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Range of Motion (ROM)
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 131 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