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

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02305 [216 AD3d 630]
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2023

Lochan v. H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc.

Ashram Lochan sued H & H Sons Home Improvement, Inc., 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, and Hassan Haghanegi for personal injuries sustained from falling off an unsecured ladder while painting, alleging Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company and, in effect, searched the record to award summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, denying the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order by deleting the award of summary judgment against Hassan Haghanegi, finding it improperly searched the record. However, it affirmed the grant of summary judgment against 82 S 4 Associate Limited Liability Company, concluding the plaintiff established a prima facie case and defendants failed to raise a triable issue. The court also affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, ruling they failed to establish the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, a recalcitrant worker, or a volunteer.

Ladder AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240(1)Sole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseUnsecured LadderConstruction Site SafetyWorker Fall
References
18
Case No. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Tenet Hospitals Limited, a Texas Limited Partnership D/B/A Providence Memorial Hospital, and Michael D. Compton, M.D. v. Elizabeth Rivera, as Next Friend for M.R.

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Complaint of Wepfer Marine, Inc. for Exoneration From or Limitation of Liability

Wepfer Marine, Inc. filed a petition to limit liability after Jose Ramon Gonzalez was injured during barge demolition. Gonzalez and his wife, along with Liberty Mutual, sued Wepfer in state court, leading Wepfer to seek federal limitation of liability. Claimants moved to dismiss the federal action, citing lack of admiralty jurisdiction due to the barge's 'dead ship' status and untimeliness of Wepfer's petition. The court granted dismissal for the main barge, ET-715, ruling it was a 'dead ship' withdrawn from navigation. However, it denied dismissal concerning the crane barge, finding potential causation through a broken crane cable, thereby retaining jurisdiction for that aspect. The court also found Wepfer's petition timely, as prior correspondence from claimants did not constitute sufficient written notice to trigger the statutory six-month filing period.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawLimitation of Liability ActVessel StatusDead Ship DoctrineAdmiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)TimelinessWritten Notice of Claim
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance Co. v. McDonald

This declaratory judgment action involves American Home Assurance Company seeking to limit its liability under professional liability policies issued to social workers Rory M. McDonald and Helene Ina Anisfeld, who are defendants in an underlying malpractice action brought by Randy Kamhi. Kamhi alleges sexual misconduct and professional negligence against McDonald, and vicarious liability and direct negligence against Anisfeld as McDonald's partner. American Home sought summary judgment to limit indemnification to $25,000 for sexual misconduct claims and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment in part, affirming the $25,000 limit for McDonald's sexual misconduct and for punitive damages for both McDonald and Anisfeld. However, the court denied the request to terminate American Home's duty to defend McDonald upon exhausting the $25,000 limit and granted Kamhi's cross-motion to stay further summary judgment applications until discovery in the underlying action is complete. Crucially, the court found that extending the sexual misconduct coverage limit to non-sexual malpractice claims violates New York public policy.

Professional Liability InsuranceSexual MisconductInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic Policy ArgumentTherapist MalpracticeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyUnconscionability Claim
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1983

Complaint of Geophysical Service, Inc.

This case involves petitioners Geophysical Service, Inc. (GSI) and Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI) seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability following the sinking of their chartered vessel, M/V ARCTIC EXPLORER, in Canadian territorial waters, resulting in 13 deaths. The petitioners also moved to dismiss the consolidated claims based on forum non conveniens. The Court, presided over by District McDonald, first determined that Canadian substantive law, particularly the Canadian Shipping Act, governed the controversy. Applying the factors from Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert and Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, the Court granted the petitioners' motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, finding Canada to be the more appropriate forum due to substantial contacts and interests. The dismissal was conditioned on GSI and TI submitting to Canadian jurisdiction, waiving any statute of limitation defense, and agreeing to satisfy any judgment rendered by a Canadian court.

Maritime LawLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensCanadian LawAdmiralty JurisdictionChoice of LawShipping ActWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryVessel Sinking
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Locario v. State

The case concerns whether the State of New York can be held liable under New York City Administrative Code § 7-210 as an abutting landowner for sidewalk maintenance. The State argued that its waiver of immunity, set forth in Court of Claims Act § 8, does not extend to liability created by local law. However, the court found that Court of Claims Act § 8's waiver of sovereign immunity is limited only by its procedural requirements and the Workers’ Compensation Law, not by tort liability created by local law. The court also determined that Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 (1) (j) does not prohibit local governments from transferring liability to the State as an abutting property owner, as long as no state statute is superseded. Distinguishing prior cases, the court concluded that the State's arguments against liability were unavailing, effectively upholding the State's potential liability under the local law.

Sovereign ImmunityTort LiabilitySidewalk MaintenanceLocal LawState LiabilityAdministrative CodeCourt of Claims ActMunicipal Home Rule LawStatutory ConstructionAbutting Landowner
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania

The case addresses the application of Texas's no-fault workers' compensation system, specifically concerning an insurance carrier's right to recoup benefits paid to an injured worker from a third party. The core dispute involves a "subrogation waiver" endorsement in an insurance policy obtained by Savage Refinery Services from its carrier, the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, intended to benefit Exxon Mobil Corporation. The central issue is whether the scope of this blanket subrogation waiver is limited by an extrinsic service contract between Savage and Exxon, particularly by a clause stating "to the extent liabilities are assumed." The Texas Supreme Court determined that the standard-form subrogation waiver endorsement only refers to the extrinsic contract to identify the beneficiary and applicable operations, but it does not incorporate any other contractual limitations. Consequently, the court held that the waiver is effective, preventing the Carrier from recovering benefits from Exxon, and reversed the court of appeals' judgment.

Subrogation WaiverInsurance LawContract InterpretationRecoupment RightsThird-Party LiabilityBlanket Waiver EndorsementExtrinsic ContractIndemnity AgreementsTexas Supreme CourtInsurance Policy Construction
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hazelwood v. Mandrell Industries Co., Ltd.

This wrongful death action examines the enforceability of an employment contract clause that limits an employer's liability for industrial injuries to the benefits provided by the Texas Worker's Compensation Act. Mr. Hazelwood died while working for Mandrell in Africa, and his widow sought full recovery, arguing the contract was void against public policy and an unenforceable contract of adhesion. The trial court initially limited recovery to the Worker's Compensation Act's benefits. On appeal, the court determined that the contractual provision was invalid because it limited the employer's liability without requiring a waiver of common law defenses, thus upsetting the legislative balance intended by the Worker's Compensation Act. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Wrongful DeathEmployment ContractPublic PolicyWorker's Compensation ActTexas LawContract of AdhesionCommon Law DefensesLiability LimitationAppellate ReviewReversed and Remanded
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 9,449 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