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. 2016-263 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C. v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Mind & Body Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee, appealed an order denying its summary judgment motion and granting Allstate Insurance Company's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The Appellate Term, Second Department, modified the Civil Court's order, affirming the denial of the plaintiff's motion but reversing the grant of the defendant's cross-motion. The court ruled that Allstate failed to establish timely mailing of its denial of claim forms, thus precluding its defense. However, the plaintiff also failed to prove that the claims were not timely denied or that the denials were without merit, leading to the proper denial of its summary judgment motion.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary Judgment MotionAppellate TermInsurance DefenseDenial of ClaimTimely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAssignee ClaimCivil Court OrderAffidavit Sufficiency
References
4
Case No. 03-15-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2015

Elite Auto Body LLC, D/B/A Precision Auto Body Rey R. Hernandez Yesica Diaz And David Damian v. Autocraft Body Works, Inc., Now Known as Wasson Road Ventures, Inc. D/B/A Autocraft Bodywerks

The Appellants, Elite Auto Body LLC, Rey R. Hernandez, Yesica Diaz, and David Damian, are appealing a trial court's order that denied their Motion to Dismiss. This motion was filed under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) against claims of trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of fiduciary duty brought by Appellee Autocraft Bodywerks, Inc. Appellants contend that the trial court erred by narrowly construing the TCPA, failing to recognize that their communications regarding business practices and employee recruitment are protected under rights of association and free speech. They also argue that Autocraft failed to provide sufficient 'clear and specific evidence' to establish a prima facie case for its claims, which is a requirement under the TCPA. Consequently, Appellants are seeking a reversal of the trial court's order, dismissal of Autocraft's claims, and an award for their attorneys' fees and expenses.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPTrade Secret MisappropriationUnfair CompetitionFiduciary DutyFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechAppellate ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Denco CS Corporation v. Body Bar, LLC

Body Bar, LLC sued Denco CS Corporation after Denco filed mechanic's liens on property leased by Body Bar, leading the new property owner, Bre Throne Preston Park, LLC, to withhold a $25,000 tenant improvement reimbursement. Body Bar sought declaratory relief, alleging breach of contract and tortious interference, and Denco counterclaimed for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Body Bar, invalidating the liens and finding Denco liable for breach of contract and tortious interference, awarding damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the court affirmed the invalidity of Denco's liens and the dismissal of Denco's claims but reversed the findings of Body Bar's breach of contract and tortious interference claims, and the $25,000 damage award, remanding these issues for further proceedings due to insufficient evidence of damages.

Contract disputeMechanic's lienStatutory lienConstitutional lienTortious interferenceBreach of contractQuantum meruitUnjust enrichmentSummary judgmentReal property
References
37
Case No. W2003-00825-SC-WCM-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2004

David Stupp v. Phillips Auto Body, LLC and First American Insurance Company

This workers' compensation appeal concerns David Stupp, who sustained a neck injury while employed at Phillips Auto Body, LLC. The trial court initially awarded a 25% vocational impairment, but both parties appealed. The defendant challenged the findings regarding permanent injury and the necessity of surgery, while the plaintiff sought a higher disability award. The Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court's decision regarding medical expenses for unauthorized treatment by Dr. Segal and found ample evidence for permanent injury. Ultimately, the panel modified the judgment to award a 45% vocational disability to the body as a whole, concluding that the evidence preponderated in favor of an increased assessment.

Vocational DisabilityPermanent InjuryMedical CausationDisk LesionSpinal SurgeryEmployer LiabilityMedical ExpensesAppellate ReviewCredibility of EvidenceAMA Guides
References
17
Case No. 06-05-00060-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2005

William Bodie McConnell v. State

William Bodie McConnell appealed his conviction for aggravated sexual assault on a child, for which the jury assessed twenty-five years' imprisonment on two counts. This case, bearing number 06-05-00060-CR, is a companion to case number 06-05-00059-CR, with identical records, briefs, and arguments. The Court resolved the issues in favor of the State, affirming the judgment of the trial court.

Aggravated Sexual AssaultChildCriminal ConvictionAppellate ReviewCompanion CaseJury PunishmentTexas Court of AppealsAffirm JudgmentMemorandum Opinion
References
1
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00333 [168 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2019

Matter of Vazquez v. Skuffy Auto Body Shop

Luis Vazquez, an auto body technician, sustained a work-related back injury in 2013 and received workers' compensation benefits. His benefits were suspended in November 2015, and upon his application for reinstatement, the carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to undisclosed work for a landscaping business. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found no violation, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, determining that Vazquez knowingly made material misrepresentations about his return to work and was subject to mandatory disqualification of benefits from April 25, 2016, to December 28, 2016, and future indemnity benefits after December 29, 2016. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Vazquez violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making false representations and omissions regarding his work activity to obtain benefits. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the Board's imposition of a penalty disqualifying him from future indemnity benefits, citing a pattern of deceit.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraudulent MisrepresentationDisqualification of BenefitsUndisclosed Work ActivityCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardIndemnity BenefitsLandscaping Business
References
5
Case No. 01-09-00737-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

Curtis Davis, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Terrence Lamoyne Davis v. Able Body Labor

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment regarding a deceased worker's compensation. The appellants, Curtis and Eva Davis, parents of the deceased Terrence Davis, challenged the employer's, Able Body Temporary Services, Inc.'s, workers' compensation exclusive remedy defense. The key issues involved the parents' authority to waive their son's workers' compensation coverage post-mortem, the employer's failure to notify the employee of his opt-out right, and the application of estoppel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that only an employee can waive coverage and that the employer's failure to provide notice does not negate the exclusive remedy provision.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentOpt-out ProvisionLegal BeneficiaryEstate AdministratorAffirmative DefenseEstoppelOpen Courts Provision
References
21
Case No. 13-09-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2010

Robert Sutherland, Jesus De La Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body v. Robert Keith Spencer

This case is an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial after a default judgment was entered against Robert Sutherland, Jesse Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body (appellants) in favor of Robert Keith Spencer (appellee). The appellants argued that the default judgment was void due to improper service and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for new trial, contending they satisfied the Craddock test. The court addressed the misnomer issue regarding service on Jesse Garza and Southern Customs, finding that the correct parties were served and not misled. Furthermore, the court concluded that the appellants failed to meet the first prong of the Craddock test, as their failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, thus affirming the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialService of ProcessMisnomerCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
Case No. ADJ14297412; ADJ14297399
Regular
Sep 29, 2025

DAVID OLIVAS vs. ECKLES AUTO BODY, INC.; PREFERRED PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The case involves David Olivas, an auto body worker, who sustained specific and cumulative trauma injuries and settled his claims via a Joint Compromise and Release. The defendant, Eckles Auto Body, Inc. and Preferred Professional Insurance Company, denied payment for interpreting services provided by Marjorie Martinez, citing untimely submission under Labor Code section 4603.2(b). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board affirmed that Labor Code section 4603.2(b) does not apply to interpreting services for Compromise and Release settlement documents, as it is limited to medical treatment-related services, concluding such services fall under a different regulatory framework for costs which lacks the 12-month billing requirement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)transmission date60-day deadlinenotice of transmissionReport and RecommendationState Comp. Ins. Fund v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Dorsett)Labor Code section 4663
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 864 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