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. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. 13-13-00331-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2014

Raul Flores, Inc. v. Adrian D. Rodriguez and L & F Distributors, L. L. C.

In this Texas Court of Appeals case, Raul Flores, Inc. (Flores) appealed the trial court's decision in a commercial property damage dispute against Adrian D. Rodriguez and L&F Distributors, L.L.C. (L&F). Flores claimed damages to its car wash canopy and concrete pavement caused by L&F's trucks. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's directed verdict on pavement damage claims due to insufficient causation evidence and the proper exclusion of Flores's expert testimony as unreliable. The court also found no reversible error in the exclusion of lay causation testimony and upheld the directed verdict on exemplary and vicarious liability claims related to the pavement.

Commercial Property DamageDirected VerdictExpert WitnessLay WitnessCausationAppellate ReviewTexas LawEvidence AdmissibilityNegligenceGross Negligence
References
28
Case No. 13-07-00301-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2010

Centocor, Inc. v. Patricia Hamilton, Thomas Hamilton, and Dr. Michael Bullen

Patricia and Thomas Hamilton sued Centocor, Inc. after Patricia developed a drug-induced lupus-like syndrome allegedly caused by her use of Remicade, a drug manufactured by Centocor. The Hamiltons alleged fraud and other causes of action, claiming Centocor's direct-to-consumer advertising for Remicade over-emphasized benefits while omitting warnings about severe side-effects like lupus-like syndrome. The jury found in favor of the Hamiltons, awarding them actual and punitive damages. On appeal, Centocor argued the "learned intermediary" doctrine precluded the Hamiltons' claims and challenged the sufficiency of causation evidence and the adequacy of its warnings. The Court of Appeals recognized an exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, holding that a drug manufacturer cannot rely on warnings to physicians when it directly advertises to patients in a misleading fashion. The court affirmed the findings of fraud and causation but reversed the award for future pain and mental anguish damages, as Patricia's symptoms ceased after discontinuing Remicade and no evidence of future suffering was presented. The court affirmed the punitive damages award as properly capped.

Pharmaceutical liabilityDrug-induced lupus-like syndromeRemicade side effectsDirect-to-consumer advertisingLearned intermediary doctrineProduct liabilityFraudulent misrepresentationCausation evidenceMedical marketingPunitive damages
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Runner v. New York Stock Exchange, Inc.

Plaintiff sustained severe hand injuries while moving an 800-pound wire reel down stairs using an improvised pulley system on defendant's premises. The District Court granted judgment for the plaintiff, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable due to a gravity-related risk. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals regarding the statute's applicability to elevation-related injuries and direct causation by gravity, particularly when neither the worker nor an object directly falls. The Court of Appeals determined that the key inquiry is whether the injury resulted from inadequate protection against a risk arising from a significant elevation differential. It concluded that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct consequence of the force of gravity on the inadequately secured reel, making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The first certified question was answered affirmatively, and the second was deemed unnecessary.

Labor LawScaffolding LawElevation DifferentialGravity RiskConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryMakeshift DeviceCertified QuestionsNew York Court of AppealsStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Agress & Brouillet

Petitioner sought an order to direct arbitration against the respondents after they allegedly refused to permit the petitioner to complete a contract for work, labor, and services on the respondents' premises. The contract included a specific arbitration clause covering disputes concerning the construction/meaning of specifications or the true value of extra work. The respondents opposed, arguing that the issue of contract termination or its justification was not covered by the arbitration clause. The court, citing precedent, determined that the arbitration clause was limited and did not encompass disputes regarding a breach of contract by either party. Consequently, finding no arbitrable dispute under the contract, the court denied the motion to direct arbitration.

ArbitrationContract DisputeScope of Arbitration ClauseMotion to Compel ArbitrationBreach of ContractLimited Arbitration Clause
References
3
Case No. ADJ9012138
Regular
Aug 12, 2016

PINON vs. DIRECT RESOURCE SOLUTION, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

In *Pinon v. Direct Resource Solution*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This action was taken to allow the WCAB further time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented in the case. The WCAB emphasized that this additional review is necessary to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Consequently, all future correspondence related to the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGrant of ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSOffice of the CommissionersDistrict OfficeWCJProposed SettlementCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P.

This case involves a collective-action lawsuit filed by William Parrish and other plaintiffs against Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to misclassification as independent contractors rather than employees. The core issue was whether the plaintiffs, who worked as Directional Drillers Consultants (DDs) and Measurement While Drilling Consultants (MWDs), were employees or independent contractors under the FLSA's economic reality test. The Court analyzed five factors: degree of control, relative investments, opportunity for profit and loss, skill and initiative, and permanency of the relationship. Ultimately, the Court found that the plaintiffs were employees, concluding that Premier exerted significant control over their work and compensation, and their investments in the job were substantially less than Premier's. Consequently, the Court denied Premier's motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and awarded the plaintiffs $363,422.00 in compensatory and liquidated damages.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Employment MisclassificationIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentOvertime CompensationBack WagesLiquidated DamagesEconomic Reality TestOil and Gas Industry
References
46
Case No. Docket No. 67
Regular Panel Decision

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Ideal World Direct

In this Memorandum and Order, District Judge William H. Pauley, III, addresses defendants Ideal World Direct, Marc Molinaro, and Matthew Ashworth's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or sever claims. Plaintiffs Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation allege copyright infringement and Lanham Act violations. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing all claims against Molinaro and Ashworth due to a lack of personal jurisdiction, but denied it regarding Ideal World Direct, finding sufficient grounds for jurisdiction and adequately pleaded claims for contributory copyright infringement and Lanham Act violations. Additionally, the court denied motions to dismiss for failure to comply with pleading requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and 10(b), and the motion to sever claims was also denied.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActPersonal JurisdictionMotion to DismissContributory InfringementInternet WebsitesOnline PiracyFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDistrict CourtCyberlaw
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

BMG DIRECT MARKETING, INC., Appellant, v. Patrick PEAKE, Et Al, Appellee

Patrick Peake, representing himself and a class of BMG Direct music club members, sued BMG Direct Marketing, Inc. over late fees, which was certified by the trial court. BMG appealed the class certification, arguing individual issues related to the voluntary payment rule would predominate. The appellate court found that the trial court adequately considered the voluntary payment defense, concluding it would apply uniformly to the class, making it a common issue. BMG also challenged Peake's typicality and adequacy as a class representative, but the court determined these were substantive issues not appropriate for an interlocutory appeal of class certification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to grant class certification.

Class ActionVoluntary Payment RuleClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealPredominanceTypicalityAdequacy of RepresentationLate FeesConsumer RightsTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,483 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