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. 05-19-01013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2020

Luxottica of America Inc. F/K/A Luxottica Retail North America Inc. and EyeMed Vision Care LLC, Gutman Vision, Inc., Alex Gutman, and Milana Gutman v. Jeffrey Gray, Dawn Gray and Brave Optical, Inc.

The case is an interlocutory appeal from the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas concerning the denial of motions to dismiss filed by Luxottica of America Inc. and EyeMed Vision Care LLC (Luxottica Appellants), and Gutman Vision, Inc., Alex Gutman, and Milana Gutman (Gutman Appellants). Jeffrey Gray, Dawn Gray, and Brave Optical, Inc. (Gray Appellees) sued the appellants for claims including conspiracy to commit fraud, alleging that the appellants failed to disclose crucial information during negotiations for the purchase of two Pearle Vision optical stores. Specifically, appellees claimed appellants withheld the fact that EyeMed had terminated its contract with Gutman Vision due to fraudulent billing practices prior to the sale. Appellants moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their communications were protected. The trial court denied these motions by operation of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, concluding that the appellees' claims were based on the appellants' alleged failure to disclose information or misrepresentations, rather than on communications protected by the TCPA's rights of free speech or association.

fraudconspiracyTexas Citizens Participation ActTCPAinterlocutory appealbusiness disputenondisclosureEyeMedLuxotticaPearle Vision
References
20
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Newman v. Tropical Visions, Inc.

The Chief Justice concurs with the majority's opinion except for its holding that a release signed by Mrs. Newman waived Tropical Visions' liability for gross negligence. The Chief Justice argues that under existing Texas case law and public policy, gross negligence cannot be waived, citing *Smith v. Golden Triangle Raceway* which held such a release void. The opinion emphasizes that gross negligence and simple negligence are distinct and separable issues in Texas, requiring different proofs of mental state and character of the act. It further asserts that actual damages can be awarded for gross negligence, serving as a predicate for exemplary damages, and notes exceptions where actual damages need not be recoverable for punitive damages. The dissent draws an analogy to worker's compensation claims where gross negligence claims survive despite waivers for ordinary negligence. The Chief Justice concludes that public policy forbids the waiver of gross negligence, and the appellees failed to establish a defense of release for the gross negligence claim as a matter of law because 'gross negligence' was not explicitly mentioned in the release.

WaiverGross NegligenceOrdinary NegligencePublic PolicyReleaseExemplary DamagesActual DamagesSummary JudgmentTexas LawContract Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ogden v. Matrix Vision of Williamson County, Inc.

In this workers' compensation case, plaintiff Roberta Ogden sustained injuries on January 11, 1986, while working for defendant Matrix Vision. She sought treatment from Dr. David W. Gaw, who diagnosed a soft tissue strain but consistently found no permanent impairment despite her persistent pain. Ogden filed a workers' compensation complaint on April 25, 1989, over three years after the accident. The trial court dismissed her claim, ruling it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations, as her injury manifested more than a year before the filing, and subsequent voluntary payments did not revive the expired statute. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, agreeing that the claim was time-barred.

Statute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation LawAccrual of Cause of ActionMedical DiagnosisSoft Tissue StrainPermanent ImpairmentVoluntary PaymentsTolling StatuteAppellate ReviewInjury Date
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Lucio Ex Rel. Lucio

This case addresses whether uncorrected or corrected vision is the standard for determining loss of sight under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Claimant Felipe Lucio, Jr. suffered an eye injury resulting in legal blindness, correctable with lenses. The trial court's ruling, affirmed by the appellate court, established uncorrected vision as the proper standard. The court reasoned that artificial correction does not constitute a recovery, and the loss remains permanent. Compensation for specific injuries under Section 12 is found to be independent of the workman's incapacity, clarifying prior conflicting interpretations.

Workers' CompensationVision LossCorrective LensesUncorrected VisionEye InjuryTexas LawStatutory InterpretationSpecific InjuryIncapacityLegal Blindness
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoffman v. CIBA VISION CORP.

Plaintiff James H. Hoffman sued his employer, CIBA Vision Corporation, alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and NYSHRL, and a state law breach of contract claim. Hoffman, a territory manager for CIBA from 1989 until his termination on January 8, 2004, at age 46, claimed his dismissal was discriminatory. CIBA moved for summary judgment, citing Hoffman's chronically poor administrative performance and sales deficiencies. The court found that Hoffman failed to demonstrate that CIBA's legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for his dismissal were pretextual. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for CIBA on the age discrimination claims and dismissed the state law breach of contract claim without prejudice, declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Age DiscriminationADEANYSHRLSummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationBreach of ContractPretextDiscriminatory IntentPerformance ReviewTerritory Manager
References
26
Case No. Docket # 45
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Empire Vision Centers, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernestine Ward filed suit against Empire Vision Centers, Inc., alleging discrimination based on race, color, and age, and retaliation under Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. The United States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson addressed several pretrial motions in the consolidated case. Ward's motion to amend the complaint was denied as moot, and her motions to unseal discovery documents were denied. While some aspects of her motions to compel discovery were granted, specifically regarding patient charts and appointment schedules, other discovery requests, including interrogatories to non-parties and subpoenas, were denied. Finally, Ward's request for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice, and her motion to appear by telephone was granted in part.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIAge Discrimination in Employment ActNew York Human Rights LawPretrial DiscoveryMotion to Amend ComplaintMotion to Compel DiscoveryMotion to Unseal DocumentsAppointment of CounselMagistrate Judge Decision
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almonte v. Averna Vision & Robotics, Inc.

Plaintiff Cristono Almonte sued Defendant Averna Vision & Robotics, Inc. for personal injuries sustained while operating an 'Inspection System' designed by the Defendant, alleging negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranties. Defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims and to exclude Plaintiff's expert testimony, while Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for negligent failure to warn. The Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment in part, specifically for the breach of implied warranty claim and the manufacturing defect aspects of the negligence and strict products liability claims, but denied it otherwise. The Court also partially granted Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiff's expert testimony, ruling against the expert's reliance on OSHA regulations, ASME emergency-stop standards, and an outdated CEMA document. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was entirely denied.

Products LiabilityPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentExpert Testimony AdmissibilityOSHA RegulationsASME StandardsDesign DefectFailure to WarnBreach of Implied WarrantyBreach of Express Warranty
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzalez v. General Motors Assembly Division

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision filed on September 17, 1979. The Board had affirmed an award to the claimant for a 100% loss of vision in their left eye, determined to be causally related to an accidental injury sustained on February 11, 1976. The appellate court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's determination. Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed, with costs awarded to the Workers' Compensation Board against the employer.

Workers' CompensationVision LossEye InjuryCausalityBoard DecisionAppealSubstantial EvidenceAffirmedInjury Claim
References
0
Case No. ADJ10261252
Regular
Aug 30, 2017

MIRELLA JIMENEZ vs. SUNALP LASER VISION, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFIT TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Sunalp Laser Vision's petition for removal of an order appointing an Independent Medical Evaluator (IME). Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will occur. The Board found no such prejudice, as the issue could be addressed at trial, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if a final adverse decision is issued. Therefore, the petition was denied.

RemovalPetition for RemovalOrder Appointing Independent Medical EvaluatorWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationMSC
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 87 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