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. 10-14-00157-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

Thomas H. Sinclair v. Estate of Fernando Ramirez and Eva Ramirez, Individually, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Fernando Ramirez, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a wrongful death and survivorship action. Appellant Thomas H. Sinclair challenges the verdict in favor of the Estate of Fernando Ramirez and Eva Ramirez. Fernando Ramirez died after an altercation at Sinclair's cabaret, following heavy drinking. The jury found Sinclair partly responsible, but the appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the appellees failed to present legally sufficient causation evidence directly connecting Sinclair’s purported negligence with the decedent’s death due to the lack of expert medical testimony ruling out other plausible causes.

NegligenceProximate CauseWrongful DeathSurvivorship ActionExpert TestimonyMedical CausationBlunt Force Head InjuriesAlcohol IntoxicationAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency
References
37
Case No. 13-14-00319-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2015

Benjamin Ebaseh-Onofa, Individually, as Personal Representative of and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of the Estate of Omonosioni Ebaseh-Onofa v. McAllen Hospitals, L. P. D/B/A Edinburg Regional Medical Center

Benjamin Ebaseh-Onofa, representing the estate of his deceased wife, Omonosioni Ebaseh-Onofa, sued McAllen Hospitals, L.P. d/b/a Edinburg Regional Medical Center for wrongful death, alleging gross negligence. Onofa, a nurse at the Hospital's Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, contracted the H1N1 virus and died in 2009. Benjamin claimed the Hospital's failure to provide N95 masks and monitor staff for respiratory illness, as per CDC guidelines, caused her infection. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hospital, concluding Benjamin failed to provide sufficient evidence of causation for a Health Care Liability Claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, ruling that Benjamin's claim was an HCLC and that he presented only speculation, not evidence, that Onofa contracted H1N1 at the Hospital, especially since the patient identified as the source tested negative for influenza.

Wrongful DeathGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentCausationHealth Care Liability ClaimMedical MalpracticeH1N1 VirusSwine FluNursing Home/Hospital NegligenceDiscovery Disputes
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2013

Mohan v. Atlantic Court, LLC

Edward Mohan sustained injuries at a construction site and later died. His representatives, the plaintiffs, filed an action for personal injuries and wrongful death against the site owner, Atlantic Court, LLC, and the general contractors, Kit Construction, LLC, and Kit Construction Co., Inc. The general contractors then brought a third-party action against Mohan's employer, Eagle One Roofing Contractors, Inc., the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order granted summary judgment dismissing the wrongful death cause of action and parts of the indemnification claims. On appeal, the order was modified: summary judgment on the wrongful death claim was denied due to factual disputes regarding the causation of Mohan's death, and summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Eagle One was denied due to a factual issue on whether Mohan suffered a grave injury. However, the contractual indemnification claims against Eagle One by Kit Construction Co., Inc. and Atlantic Court, LLC, were affirmed.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorAppellate ReviewCausation (Medical)
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raum v. Restaurant Associates, Inc.

This dissenting opinion argues that the plaintiff, a homosexual partner, should have standing to sue for wrongful-death damages under EPTL 5-4.1. The dissent contends that the motion court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's wrongful-death claim by narrowly interpreting 'surviving spouse'. It asserts that denying homosexual partners, who are legally barred from marrying, the right to sue constitutes an invidious distinction violating the Equal Protection Clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. The opinion references precedents like Braschi v Stahl Assocs. Co. to support a broader, functional interpretation of the statute to promote public welfare, and distinguishes other cases like Matter of Cooper and Matter of Secord v Fischetti. It concludes that excluding homosexual life partners from the class of persons with standing lacks a rational basis, as it is unrelated to the statute's goals, the State's marriage policy, or administrative convenience, and therefore the decision below should be reversed and the wrongful-death claim reinstated.

Wrongful DeathEqual ProtectionHomosexual PartnersSurviving SpouseEPTL 5-4.1Statutory InterpretationConstitutional LawSame-Sex MarriageRational Basis ReviewStanding to Sue
References
14
Case No. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision

Testerman v. Zielinski

The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic LawAutomobile AccidentExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P.T. & E. Co. v. Beasley

This case involves a wrongful death and survival action stemming from a fatal collision between a truck-tractor driven by appellant Wyman Lee Scroggins and a pickup truck driven by James F. Beasley. The heirs of James F. Beasley (appellees) sued Scroggins and P.T. & E. Company (appellants) for common law negligence, wrongful death, and survival statutes. The jury found Scroggins negligent and awarded damages, but the trial court initially disregarded awards for mental anguish. Appellants' points of error challenging liability, damages, and jury misconduct were overruled. Appellees cross-appealed the denial of mental anguish damages. The appellate court reinstated the jury's award for mental anguish damages for the spouse, children, and mother of the deceased, citing recent Texas Supreme Court precedent extending such recovery, and affirmed the judgment as reformed.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionNegligenceJury MisconductDamagesMental AnguishLoss of ConsortiumPecuniary LossAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1978

Sanders v. Southfield Heights, Inc.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County. The order granted defendant Southfield Heights, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it. The complaint alleged causes of action for negligence and wrongful death. The court found that no reasonable view of the allegations supported a claim of intentional tort. Sections 10 and 11 of the Workers' Compensation Law served as an absolute bar to the action against the respondent. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed proper, and the order was affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawIntentional TortDismissalAppeal AffirmedAbsolute Bar
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Rista

In this wrongful death action, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, while intoxicated, negligently caused the death of John Thornton. Both individuals were performing a moving job for Moving Man, Inc. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that workers' compensation benefits provided the exclusive remedy, as both were supposedly under the 'same employ.' However, the court found that material issues of fact exist regarding Thornton's employment status (employee versus independent contractor) with Moving Man, Inc. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied. The court also noted that Workers' Compensation Board determinations regarding Thornton were not binding on the plaintiff due to lack of proper notice to the estate.

wrongful deathworkers' compensationsummary judgmentindependent contractoremployer-employee relationshipintoxicationnegligenceexclusive remedymaterial issues of factappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hirsch v. Mastroianni

In a wrongful death action, the plaintiff, Hirsch's widow, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The lower court dismissed the complaint, ruling the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (subd 6), and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to dismiss this affirmative defense. The factual background involved co-employees Hirsch and Di Stefano, where Di Stefano shot Hirsch to death and then committed suicide. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that Di Stefano was not acting within the scope of his employment, thus making the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision inapplicable. Citing Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., the court clarified that the law does not bar tort actions against co-employees for acts outside the scope of employment or for intentional torts, and an insane person is liable for their torts.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee LiabilityScope of EmploymentIntentional TortNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyCPLR 3211
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1989

Trevino v. Lightning Laydown, Inc.

This case involves a wrongful death and survival action following the death of Jose Trevino in a collision caused by a detached trailer. The appellants sued International Bank of Commerce (IBC) and several other defendants, who settled. A jury found IBC five percent at fault due to negligence and conscious indifference, but declined to award exemplary damages, while the settling defendants were ninety-five percent at fault. The trial court limited IBC's liability to five percent of actual damages. On appeal, the appellants argued that IBC's gross negligence should make it liable for the entire damages, contending that gross negligence is a distinct cause of action not subject to comparative negligence statutes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that gross negligence is not a "theory other than negligence" within the meaning of Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co. and that the comparative negligence framework was correctly applied to reduce IBC's liability.

wrongful deathsurvival actionnegligencegross negligencecomparative negligenceexemplary damagesMary Carter settlementjoint tortfeasorsproduct liabilityappellate decision
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 2,935 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