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. 03-05-00610-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2006

in Re Senior Living Properties, L.L.C.

Relator Senior Living Properties, L.L.C. petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the trial court's refusal to abate a lawsuit brought by former employee Betty Robinett. Robinett sued Senior Living for negligence and breach of contract after being denied benefits from an Employee Injury Benefit Plan following a job injury. Senior Living contended that Robinett was bound by an arbitration agreement. The Texas Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ruling that Robinett's claims, including those sounding in tort, were encompassed by the arbitration agreement in the Employee Protection Plan, thereby compelling her to undergo mediation and binding arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment InjuryMandamus PetitionContract BreachNegligence ClaimEmployee Benefits PlanTexas Appellate CourtDispute ResolutionWorkers' Compensation AlternativeWaiver of Rights
References
19
Case No. 2017-06-0811
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Summers, Mary v. BrightSpace Senior Living, LLC

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee, Mary Summers, initially reported a left leg injury from a fall at work, which the employer, BrightSpace Senior Living, LLC, accepted. Subsequently, Summers reported right shoulder and ribcage injuries from the same incident, which the employer denied, arguing they were not work-related. The trial court ordered the employer to provide medical treatment for these additional injuries. The employer appealed, asserting an incorrect evidentiary standard was applied at the expedited hearing. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order and remanded the case, finding sufficient evidence that the employee's shoulder and ribcage injuries were likely a result of the work-related fall.

Interlocutory AppealInjury CausationMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryRibcage InjuryLeg InjuryEvidentiary StandardPanel of PhysiciansDelayed ReportingPre-existing Injury
References
6
Case No. 01-10-01000-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2012

Mary Collins v. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. and Nick Roccoforte

Mary Collins, an appellant, challenged a take-nothing judgment on a jury verdict in favor of appellees Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. and Nick Roccaforte. Collins had sued for tortious interference and defamation after Roccaforte banned her from their facilities due to alleged misconduct and resident mistreatment. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while the jury's "no publication" finding for defamation was legally insufficient, the defendants conclusively established the substantial truth of the complaints against Collins, thereby defeating her defamation claim. The court also affirmed the jury's finding of no business disparagement and upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings.

tortious interferencedefamationbusiness disparagementjustification defensegood faith beliefsubstantial truthappellate reviewjury verdictelder careindependent living facility
References
55
Case No. 01-15-00567-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2015

in the Guardianship of Ruby Peterson

This case involves an appeal filed by Mackey Glen Peterson, Tonya Peterson, Don Leslie Peterson, and Lonny Peterson against Silverado Senior Living, Inc., d/b/a Silverado Senior Living Sugar Land. The dispute centers on the appellants' standing to bring claims on behalf of Ruby S. Peterson, a resident at Silverado. The plaintiffs allege false imprisonment, assault and battery (due to forced psychotropic drugs), breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy, contending that Silverado acted against Ruby Peterson's will despite a revoked power of attorney. Silverado sought dismissal of these claims, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing and that Silverado acted in good faith based on a valid 1993 power of attorney. The court previously granted a 91a motion to dismiss earlier causes of action, and Silverado is currently moving to dismiss the remaining claims.

DementiaElder AbusePower of AttorneyMedical DecisionsFalse ImprisonmentAssault and BatteryFiduciary DutyConspiracyRule 91a DismissalStanding
References
25
Case No. 01-12-00581-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Newspaper Holdings, Inc., Integracare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, LTD, Crazy Hotel Assisted Living GP, LLC, Leisure Life Senior Apartment Housing II, LTD, and Charles v. Miller, Jr.

This case is an appeal from the denial of motions to dismiss a defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference lawsuit. Appellants, Newspaper Holdings, Inc., IntegraCare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson, published articles detailing regulatory issues and investigations at Crazy Hotel Assisted Living facility and its owner, Charles Miller. They sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their communications were protected free speech on matters of public concern. The appellate court found it had jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Appellants met the TCPA burden, and that Appellees failed to provide prima facie evidence for their claims. The court also determined the commercial speech exemption to the TCPA did not apply, remanding the case for dismissal.

DefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA)Free SpeechPublic ConcernAssisted Living FacilityElder AbuseMedicaid Fraud ProbeNewspaper Articles
References
29
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06887 [211 AD3d 432]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2022

Lively v. Wafra Inv. Advisory Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Francis P. Lively, appealed an order that dismissed his complaint against Wafra Investment Advisory Group, Inc. and Fawaz Al-Mubaraki. Lively, a former senior managing director, alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws after being terminated due to sexual harassment complaints. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Lively failed to sufficiently allege age discrimination or a causal connection for retaliation. Additionally, his claims for tortious interference, defamation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit were also found to be inadequately pleaded or barred by other laws. The Second Circuit's prior dismissal of federal claims did not, however, preclude state law claims based on collateral estoppel.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawHuman Rights LawCollateral EstoppelWrongful TerminationTortious InterferenceDefamationUnjust EnrichmentQuantum Meruit
References
16
Case No. NO. 2-02-418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Gina Lively and Robert Lively v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. D/B/A Huguley Memorial Medical Center

This is a premises liability case arising from an alleged carjacking, abduction, and sexual assault of Gina Lively on the Hospital's premises. Gina and Robert Lively sued Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. d/b/a Huguley Memorial Medical Center, alleging negligence and breach of implied warranty. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the Hospital. The Appellants appealed the directed verdict on premises liability, and the denial of their motion to reopen, for mistrial, and for a new trial and sanctions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no evidence of cause-in-fact for negligence and no recognized cause of action for breach of implied warranty.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceDirected VerdictForeseeabilityCause-in-FactImplied WarrantyAbductionSexual AssaultEmployee SafetyInadequate Security
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wheeler v. Grande'Vie Senior Living Community

Plaintiff John A. Wheeler suffered injuries after slipping on ice and falling in the parking lot of defendant's assisted living facility while helping his mother-in-law move during a snowstorm. The area where he fell had been shoveled, but ice was present beneath a thin layer of snow. Wheeler and his wife initiated a personal injury action, which the Supreme Court dismissed by granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, citing the "storm in progress" doctrine. On appeal, the higher court affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant's snow removal efforts created a hazardous condition or exacerbated the natural hazards of the storm. Furthermore, the court found no duty to warn of icy conditions during an ongoing storm under the specific circumstances, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Personal InjurySlip and FallPremises LiabilityStorm in Progress DoctrineSummary JudgmentLandowner DutySnow RemovalIceNegligenceAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00169 [168 AD3d 1199]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2019

Matter of Villagra v. Sunrise Senior Living Mgt.

Claimant Rosalind M. Villagra sought workers' compensation benefits after an injury sustained at work. Her claim was initially disallowed by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) due to a lack of prima facie medical evidence. Subsequently, claimant filed an application for Board review, requesting a rehearing or reopening of her claim, arguing the WCLJ's decision was inconsistent. The Workers' Compensation Board denied her application, deeming it an untimely appeal from the WCLJ's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board applied an incorrect statutory framework and should have evaluated the application as one for rehearing or reopening.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimeliness of AppealApplication for RehearingReopening of ClaimPrima Facie Medical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Law Judge DecisionAppellate ReviewStatutory FrameworkProcedural ErrorRemittal to Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Atria Senior Living Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernest Rodriguez sued his former employer Atria Senior Living Group under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Rodriguez moved for partial summary judgment on one ADA reasonable accommodation claim, one ADA retaliation claim, and six FMLA interference claims. The Court denied Rodriguez's motion for partial summary judgment in its entirety. The Court granted summary judgment to Atria on the ADA reasonable accommodation claim, the ADA retaliation claim, and four of the FMLA claims, finding no genuine disputes of material fact. However, for two FMLA claims concerning health insurance premiums and concurrent workers' compensation leave, the Court denied summary judgment to both parties due to unresolved factual disputes.

ADA accommodationADA retaliationFMLA interferenceSummary judgmentMedical leaveDisability discrimination100% healed policyHealth insurance premiumsWorkers' compensationEmployee benefits
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 695 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