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. 2025 NY Slip Op 25024
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of W.S. v. G.S.

The petitioner (W.S.) filed a family offense petition against the respondent (G.S.), his sister, alleging harassment in the second degree. W.S. claimed G.S. threatened 'further consequences' and made false statements in a Mental Hygiene Law article 9 petition, leading to W.S.'s arrest. G.S. argued her statements were privileged and made due to genuine fear and concerns about W.S.'s mental health and hoarding. The court held that communications made in support of a Mental Hygiene Law petition are subject to a qualified privilege and serve a 'legitimate purpose' unless made with knowing/reckless disregard of falsity and solely to alarm/annoy. The court found W.S. failed to prove G.S.'s statements met this higher standard or that her other alleged actions constituted harassment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Family OffenseHarassment Second DegreeMental Hygiene Law Article 9Qualified PrivilegeLegitimate Purpose DefenseIntent to HarassBurden of ProofCredibility of WitnessesStatements to PoliceMalice Standard
References
22
Case No. 12-14-00256-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2015

Troy W. Simmons, D.D.S., P.C. and Troy W. Simmons, D.D.S. v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission

This case concerns an appeal by Troy W. Simmons, D.D.S., P.C., and Troy W. Simmons, D.D.S. (Simmons) against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (THHSC). Simmons appealed the trial court's decision to grant THHSC's plea to the jurisdiction, which dismissed Simmons's suit for declaratory judgment. The dispute originated from a Medicaid fraud investigation by THHSC, leading to a payment hold and a final notice of overpayment against Simmons. Simmons's subsequent declaratory judgment suit, alleging ultra vires actions and constitutional violations, was dismissed on grounds of sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Simmons failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity by suing the state agency directly instead of an official, and that the Declaratory Judgment Act did not confer jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory Judgment ActUltra ViresMedicaid FraudAdministrative RemediesGovernmental ImmunityTexas LawAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
18
Case No. 10-10-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2011

in the Interest of R.S., A.S., N.S., and B.J.S., Children

Rebecca S., Michael W., and Billy B. appealed a trial court's judgment in Johnson County, Texas, terminating their parental rights to R.S., A.S., N.S., and B.J.S. The jury found grounds for termination, including endangerment due to unstable living conditions, exposure to individuals with histories of abuse/neglect, and the parents' mental deficiencies. The appeals court reviewed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and affirmed the termination. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to refuse a requested jury charge related to retaining jurisdiction under Section 263.403.

parental rights terminationchild endangermentbest interest of the childmental deficiencyneglectabuseappellate reviewTexas Family Codejury verdictunstable environment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2015

Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc.

This case concerns a wage-and-hour action filed by Vincent E. Boice against M+W U.S., Inc., Total Facility Solutions, Inc., and M+W Zander N.Y. Architects, P.C. under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff moved to conditionally certify a collective action and compel discovery. Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended denying conditional certification without prejudice but granting limited pre-certification discovery for employee contact information. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby accepted and adopted this Report-Recommendation, denying the defendants' motion to strike the declaration and the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification while granting in part the motion to compel discovery. The court also denied other relief sought by the plaintiff and reopened the discovery period for 90 days.

FLSAWage-and-Hour ActionCollective ActionConditional CertificationDiscovery MotionOvertime CompensationJudicial ReviewEmployment LawClass Action ProcedureMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
60
Case No. 07-02-0172-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2004

Lucille W. Bean v. Dr. Deena Buford and Dr. Julie George, Exxon Mobile Corporation, Exxon Corporation and Exxon Chemicals Americas

Lucille W. Bean appealed a summary judgment in favor of Deena Buford, M.D., Julie George, M.D., Exxon Mobil Corporation, Exxon Corporation, and Exxon Chemicals Americas. Bean, a former Exxon employee, had filed a worker's compensation claim and EEOC complaints, leading to her termination. She alleged breach of physician-patient confidentiality, intentional misrepresentation regarding medical information confidentiality, and retaliation for her complaints. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding Bean failed to demonstrate harm from alleged disclosures or successfully challenge all grounds for summary judgment, including her inability to perform job functions, thus not disproving the validity of the trial court's decision.

DiscriminationRetaliationWorker's Compensation ClaimSummary JudgmentPhysician-Patient ConfidentialityIntentional MisrepresentationAppellate ReviewEmployment TerminationMedical Information DisclosureTexas Law
References
8
Case No. 02-11-00200-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

in the Interest of S.W., K.H., K.H., K.H., K.H., and K v. Children

This memorandum opinion from the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, addresses appeals by T.H. (Mother) and Q.D. (Father) regarding a trial court's order. The order appointed the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services as permanent managing conservator for five children and S.W.'s father as sole managing conservator for S.W. Father's appeal focused on the admissibility of a Michigan home study report, which the court affirmed as trustworthy under the public records exception. Mother's appeal claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, citing issues with opening statements, evidence of firing attorneys, lack of preparation, and failure to obtain updated mental health evaluations or secure out-of-state witnesses. The appellate court found no reversible error, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Child ConservatorshipParental RightsIneffective Assistance of CounselPublic Records ExceptionHearsayFamily LawChild ProtectionMental HealthAppellate ReviewTrial Strategy
References
22
Case No. 2-06-191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2008

in the Interest of D.W., T.W., and S.G., Children

Appellant Betty W. appealed a final order terminating her parental rights to her three children. She raised four issues: the constitutionality of a one-year dismissal deadline, the denial of her motion to extend that deadline, the constitutionality of a statute barring appellate review of unlisted issues (section 263.405(i)), and a due process violation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, finding that Betty failed to preserve her first issue, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying her motion to extend the deadline. However, the court held that section 263.405(i) violated the Separation of Powers Clause of the Texas Constitution. Ultimately, the order terminating parental rights was affirmed as Betty did not provide a record for her second issue.

Parental Rights TerminationSeparation of PowersAppellate ProcedureTexas Family CodeDue ProcessChild WelfareAbuse of DiscretionJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationConstitutional Law
References
123
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. 08-24-00065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2025

Kevin F. Karli, James W. Dobbs, Margaret E. Dobbs, Henry C. McQuaide, III, Chris H. Hoegemeyer, Kyle W. Hoegemeyer, William H. Hoegemeyer II, Sam Wigington, III, Justin T. Price, Robert Hugh Williams, Gwendolyn S. Williams, Stephanie R. Saculla, John Cody Saculla, Patrick Clarke, Kathryn E. Clarke, and Mary Catherine Davis, Independent of the Estate of Joe R. Davis v. Claude Wilson, Mary Claudene Brewer, Arleigh P. Helfer, Melany Rae Helfer-Hullett, Wendi Rene Hughes, Karen Sue Schaible, John Weldon Allums, Alvin Reese Helfer and Jason Reed Helfer

This case concerns the proper interpretation of a reservation clause of an oil-and-gas deed wherein the clause includes inconsistent language about the rights reserved by two grantors and the fractional share of the rights. The grantors’ and grantee’s successors dispute whether the reserved interests are bare royalty interests or interests in the mineral estate stripped of rights to bonus and delay rentals but including executive and development rights. They also disagree on whether the reserved interests include 1/4 or 1/32 of the respective lease royalties. The court held that each grantor reserved a 1/4 mineral interest stripped of all rights except for the right to royalty payments equal to 1/4 of the lease royalty, affirming in part and reversing in part the trial court’s judgment.

Oil and Gas DeedMineral InterestRoyalty InterestReservation ClauseDeed InterpretationNon-Participating InterestExecutive RightDevelopment RightBonus PaymentsDelay Rentals
References
53
Case No. In re U.S. Air Duct Corporation
Regular Panel Decision

Mazur v. U. S. Air Duct Corp. (In Re U. S. Air Duct Corp.)

The case involves the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 58 (the Association) seeking to recover fringe benefits and wage supplement contributions from U.S. Air Duct Corporation (the Debtor) and its president, Franklin E. Bean (the Non-Debtor). The Association initiated an action in New York Supreme Court, which was subsequently stayed when the Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Non-Debtor removed the state-court proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court, prompting the Association to move for its remand. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Association's motion, asserting jurisdiction over the claim against the Non-Debtor based on its relation to the Title 11 case and the joint and several liability under New York Labor Law Section 198-c. The court also affirmed the permissibility of removal by "any party" under 28 U.S.C. 1478(a).

BankruptcyChapter 7RemovalRemandJurisdictionLabor LawFringe BenefitsWage SupplementsCorporate Officer LiabilityJoint and Several Liability
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 9,854 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