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. 13-06-00661-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2009

in Re: Advance EMS Services, Inc. D/B/A Advance EMS Ambulance Services, Inc.

Advance EMS Services, Inc. ("Advance EMS") sought a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to grant its motion to compel arbitration against Gary Davenport. Davenport, a former employee, had sued Advance EMS for various claims including negligence and wrongful termination, stemming from workplace injuries. Advance EMS's motion relied on an arbitration clause in its Standard Operating Procedures manual, but the trial court denied it. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for mandamus, citing Advance EMS's failure to prove a valid arbitration agreement, given inconsistent testimony about the manual's revisions and the timing of Davenport's acknowledgment. The court affirmed deference to the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations regarding the evidence presented.

ArbitrationMandamusEmployment DisputeFederal Arbitration ActPolicy ManualContract ValidityCredibility DeterminationTexas Court of AppealsScope of AgreementEvidentiary Hearing
References
16
Case No. 02-24-00248-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

Granbury SNF LLC D/B/A Granbury Rehab & Nursing, Advanced HCS LLC D/B/A Advanced Healthcare Solutions, and Granbury Rehab & Nursing GS LLC v. Natalie Jackson

Natalie Jackson sued Granbury SNF LLC, Advanced HCS LLC, and Granbury Rehab & Nursing GS LLC for unlawful retaliation after reporting resident abuse. A jury found in Jackson's favor, awarding compensatory and exemplary damages. On appeal, the Appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence for Granbury GS's involvement, mental anguish damages, exemplary damages for reprehensible conduct, and the individual capping of punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, largely finding that Appellants failed to preserve most issues. Specifically, the court affirmed the exemplary damages against Granbury GS and the award of contingent appellate attorney's fees, citing sufficient evidence of malice and proper calculation methods for fees.

Unlawful RetaliationAbuse ReportingExemplary DamagesMental Anguish DamagesLegal SufficiencyAppellate Attorney's FeesPreservation of ErrorVice-Principal DoctrineTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Health & Safety Code
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. ADJ7847287
Regular
Sep 20, 2011

MICHAEL WATERS vs. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO., BROADSPIRE

The WCAB granted reconsideration and rescinded an administrative law judge's order compelling the defendant to advance $2,000 to the applicant's attorney for a vocational expert's costs. While acknowledging that advances on permanent disability are common, the Board found the specific order to pay an attorney's trust account for potential future expert costs lacked statutory basis. The Board clarified that the applicant's attorney may incur such costs at their own expense and then seek reimbursement if deemed reasonable and necessary.

Petition for RemovalPetition for Reconsiderationvocational expertdiminished future earning capacitypermanent disabilityrehabilitation experttrust accountadvance costsreimbursementLabor Code sections 5811
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silberstein v. Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc.

This is an employment discrimination action filed by plaintiff Silberstein, formerly a senior vice president at The New Yorker, alleging demotion and termination due to a second pregnancy under Title VII and New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Defendants, Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. and S.I. Néwhouse, Jr., moved to dismiss claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent supervision. The court granted the motion, ruling that New York law’s stringent standards for intentional infliction of emotional distress were not met, especially given that statutory remedies for discrimination already exist without punitive damages. The negligent supervision claim was also dismissed due to the exclusivity of workers' compensation as a remedy for co-employee negligence and the lack of allegations regarding the employer's knowledge of the supervisor's propensities.

Employment DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligent SupervisionTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawsWorkers' Compensation LawMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. ADJ2151993 (SFO 0507276)
Regular
May 18, 2018

RICHARD JOHNSON vs. CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OF PACIFICA

This case concerns the award of appellate costs to the City of Pacifica. The Court of Appeal previously affirmed a decision in Pacifica's favor and ordered the City of South San Francisco (CSSF) to bear Pacifica's costs. Pacifica subsequently submitted a verified petition for costs totaling $1,425.00, which included electronic filing and paper copy expenses. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found Pacifica's requested costs reasonable and awarded them against CSSF.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemittiturFirst District Court of AppealPetition for ReconsiderationArbitratorPetition for CostsAppellate CostsReimbursementVerified PetitionSubstantiation of Costs
References
1
Case No. ADJ3792740 (OAK 0325116)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

BONNIE REDDRICK vs. TENET/DOCTORS MEDICAL CENTER

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant's attorney. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for the determination of these costs following the denial of the defendant's petition for review. The Appeals Board awarded $152.21 in costs, representing verifiable delivery expenses, as in-house copying, mailing, and labor costs are considered overhead and not recoverable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Johnson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Supreme Court of CaliforniaItemized CostsDelivery CostsMailing CostsCopying Costs
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tokyo Electron Arizona, Inc. v. Discreet Industries Corp.

This order addresses the plaintiff Tokyo Electron Arizona's (TAZ) application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs against defendants Discreet Industries and Ovadia Meron (Discreet), pursuant to Federal Rule 37. The court determines the appropriate award by assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended, applying the lodestar method. While acknowledging the high caliber of work, the court reduced Mr. Haug's hourly rate and applied a 10% overall reduction to the billed hours to account for potential overlap. Additionally, the court found TAZ's copying and transcript costs reasonable and partially awarded costs for a computer-generated Power Point presentation. Ultimately, TAZ was awarded $55,751.79 in fees and $5386.19 in costs, totaling $61,137.98.

Attorney's FeesCostsDiscovery SanctionsFederal Rule 37Lodestar MethodHourly RatesReasonable HoursEastern District of New YorkSouthern District of New YorkWork Product Doctrine
References
26
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07432 [166 AD3d 621]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2018

Matter of Progressive Advanced Ins. Co. v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This case involves an appeal by Progressive Advanced Insurance Company (Progressive) against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) concerning an arbitration award. The dispute arose under Insurance Law § 5105 regarding a loss transfer claim, where NYCTA sought reimbursement from Progressive for workers' compensation benefits paid to its employee after a collision involving Progressive's insured. The central issue was whether a 20% no-fault offset applied to the workers' compensation wages, with the arbitrator ruling it did not, as a one-third offset had already been applied. Progressive's petition to vacate the award was denied by the Supreme Court, Queens County. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial, concluding that the arbitrator's determination was supported by a reasonable hypothesis and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Arbitration AwardLoss TransferInsurance LawWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNo-Fault OffsetAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and CapriciousReasonable Hypothesis
References
9
Case No. 3-93-571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 1994

Advanced Living Technologies, Inc., D/B/A Manor Oaks Nursing Home v. Irene Tindle

Irene Tindle filed suit against Advanced Living Technologies, Inc. (ALT), operating as Manor Oaks Nursing Home, for damages resulting from a workplace injury where she slipped on spilled water. The trial court awarded Tindle damages and prejudgment interest. ALT appealed, raising multiple points of error concerning procedural rulings, evidence sufficiency, and the calculation of prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals, Third District of Texas, modified the judgment to adjust the prejudgment interest accrual period to 180 days after March 20, 1989, the date ALT received notice of the claim, and affirmed the judgment as modified. The court largely upheld the trial court's findings regarding ALT's knowledge of the dangerous condition and the admissibility of witness testimony.

Workplace InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityPrejudgment InterestAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEvidence SufficiencyWitness TestimonyDiscovery Abuse
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 2,572 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