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. 05-17-01457-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Charles Chang, M.D. v. Ashley Denny

Dr. Charles Chang performed brain surgery on Ashley Denny in 2006, leaving a cotton ball in her brain, which was discovered during a second surgery in 2011. Denny filed a medical liability claim against Dr. Chang in 2013, approximately seven years after the initial surgery and more than two years after discovering the foreign object. The trial court initially dismissed the claims as time-barred but later granted a new trial, where a jury found Dr. Chang negligent and Denny diligent in pursuing her claim. Dr. Chang appealed, challenging the denial of his motion for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto (JNOV) on Denny's open courts defense. The dissenting opinion argues that Denny failed to exercise due diligence as a matter of law, given the 25-month delay in filing suit after discovery, and that her explanations (difficulty helping her lawyer and finding an expert) are insufficient to overcome the statute of limitations. The dissent concludes that the law should be applied neutrally, preventing recovery against Dr. Chang and suggesting Denny's recourse should be against her attorney.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsOpen Courts DoctrineDue DiligenceForeign ObjectSurgical ErrorJury VerdictJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kesterson v. Varner

Bruce Varner (Father) appealed the trial court's dismissal of his Petition to Modify Custody of his son, J.V. The original custody was awarded to Judy Kesterson (Mother) in a 1990 divorce. Varner sought modification in 2002, citing J.V.'s serious mental health issues, including ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, as a material change in circumstances. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding Varner failed to prove a material change in circumstances or that a custody change was in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that while a material change in circumstances was established due to J.V.'s mental health, Varner did not meet the burden of proof that changing custody to him would be in J.V.'s best interest, especially given expert testimony on J.V.'s manipulative behavior and the guardian ad litem's recommendation for J.V. to remain with the mother. The court also affirmed the allocation of attorney's fees and guardian ad litem fees to Varner.

Custody ModificationChild Mental HealthParental DiscretionBest Interest of ChildGuardian Ad Litem FeesAttorney Fees AwardAppellate ReviewTrial Court DismissalPsychiatric DiagnosisAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
References
29
Case No. W2016-01817-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2017

Jane Doe v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.

Jane Doe, a hospitality manager at P.F. Chang's, was robbed and raped by a co-worker during closing procedures. Jane and John Doe filed a tort action against P.F. Chang's, which moved for summary judgment, arguing the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. The trial court denied the motion, finding the injuries did not arise out of employment. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed, concluding that the sexual assault was not a risk inherent to Ms. Doe’s employment, thus the exclusive remedy provision of workers' compensation law did not apply, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workplace AssaultSexual AssaultWorkers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DoctrineSummary JudgmentScope of EmploymentCausal ConnectionRobberyTort LawRestaurant Employee
References
30
Case No. E2013-01734-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2014

Joshua Wayne Taylor v. Mary Katherine Taylor

This is a post-divorce case concerning the modification of a permanent parenting plan and other relief for the parties' daughter. Mother initially sought to modify the residential parenting schedule, and Father counterclaimed for a modified schedule and a change in custody designation. The trial court found no material change in circumstances to warrant a change in the primary residential parent but found a material change supporting a modification of the residential schedule, significantly increasing Mother's parenting time. Father appealed this decision, raising issues regarding the material change in circumstances, failure to designate him as the primary residential parent, and failure to find Mother in contempt. Mother raised issues concerning deviations from child support guidelines and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the denial of a custody change, the modification of the parenting schedule, or the handling of contempt and child support issues.

DivorceChild CustodyParenting Plan ModificationResidential ScheduleMaterial Change in CircumstancesChild Support GuidelinesContempt of CourtAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
38
Case No. W2010-01715-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Whitney W. Webb v. Justin L. Pewitt

This case concerns a post-divorce modification of child custody. The trial court changed primary residential custody from the mother to the father after finding a material change in circumstances and determining it was in the child's best interest. The mother appealed, raising several issues regarding the trial court's findings and considerations, including its assessment of her lifestyle changes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the finding of a material change in circumstances due to the mother's unstable living conditions, multiple moves, domestic altercations, and the child's troubled state, and that the custody modification was in the child's best interest for stability.

Child CustodyPost-DivorceMaterial Change in CircumstancesBest Interest of the ChildParental StabilityDomestic DisturbancesParental ConductAppellate ReviewTrial Court FindingsRule 52.01
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oddy v. Oddy

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Warren County that modified a prior joint custody order, granting the petitioner (mother) sole physical custody of the child and specifying visitation for the respondent (father). The respondent appealed, arguing that the Family Court abused its discretion by modifying custody without a showing of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division found sufficient changed circumstances, citing a significant breakdown in communication between the father and the child, which negatively impacted his ability to meet her emotional needs, and the child's consistent strong desire to reside with her mother. The court considered the opinions of the child's social worker and a court-appointed psychologist, both of whom supported the change in physical custody to enhance the child's emotional development. Consequently, the Family Court's order affirming the modification of the custody arrangement was affirmed.

Custody ModificationChild's Best InterestFamily Law AppealParental RightsPhysical CustodyJoint CustodyChanged CircumstancesChild PreferenceCommunication BreakdownMental Health Evaluation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

World Trading Corp. v. Kolchin

The plaintiff sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from arbitrating disputes, arguing that the defendant union's change in affiliation from the American Federation of Labor to the Committee for Industrial Organization, along with a name change, altered its legal entity and invalidated their contract. The court disagreed, holding that a union's identity, structure, operation, constitution, by-laws, officers, and membership remain the same despite changes in affiliation and name. The court affirmed that such changes do not affect the union's rights or responsibilities under existing contracts. Therefore, the court found no basis to support the plaintiff's contention.

union affiliationarbitration disputeinjunctioncontract validityorganizational identitylabor lawname changelegal entitytrade unionsAmerican Federation of Labor
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01114 [214 AD3d 1031]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2023

Matter of Tara DD. v. Seth CC.

This case concerns an appeal by Seth CC. (father) from a Family Court order that modified a prior visitation order, limiting the father's parenting time. The Family Court found a change in circumstances, citing the father's failure to properly supervise the child, evidence of a marihuana-growing operation in his home, and serious housekeeping deficiencies. These issues were deemed detrimental to the child's safety and well-being. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, concluding that there was a sound and substantial basis in the record to support both the finding of a change in circumstances and the determination that supervised or public place visitation was in the child's best interests.

Child custodyVisitation modificationParental supervisionChild's best interestsChange in circumstancesMarihuana cultivationHygienic concernsFamily Court appealAppellate reviewParental responsibility
References
23
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 1995

Wight v. Wight

This case involves an appeal regarding a plaintiff's motion to terminate his maintenance obligation to the defendant. The plaintiff sought termination due to early retirement, but the Supreme Court denied his motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, noting that the plaintiff's financial situation remained substantially more favorable than the defendant's, despite his retirement. The court found that the plaintiff's asserted change in circumstances was largely self-imposed through his early retirement, disinclination to seek new employment, and transfer of significant assets to his second wife. Consequently, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances to warrant a reduction in spousal maintenance.

MaintenanceAlimonyDivorceFinancial StatusEarly RetirementChange in CircumstancesSpousal SupportEquitable DistributionAppellate CourtAffirmation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,810 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