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. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. E2019-00215-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2020

In Re: Estate Of Wawana Lynn Brakebill

Attorney Herbert Moncier appealed the Chancery Court's denial of prejudgment and post-judgment interest on a substantial attorney's fees award, along with his request for fees for self-representation. The appellate court found no error in the trial court's decision. It affirmed the denial of post-judgment interest due to Moncier's failure to adhere to statutory procedural requirements for judgment entry against an estate. Furthermore, the court upheld the denial of prejudgment interest, noting the uncertainty of the fee amount prior to judicial approval. Lastly, the appellate court affirmed that a pro se attorney cannot recover attorney's fees for their own time, reinforcing established legal precedent against awarding fees in the absence of an attorney-client agency relationship.

Attorney's Fees LitigationPrejudgment Interest DenialPost-judgment Interest DenialPro Se Attorney FeesEstate ClaimsConservatorship OversightStatutory ComplianceAppellate AffirmationJudicial DiscretionTennessee Court of Appeals
References
15
Case No. 10-17-00260-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2019

Estate of Miriam Mae Pharris

Kathy Roux appealed the trial court's decisions regarding the estate of Miriam Mae Pharris. Roux, who previously represented Dennis Pharris, sought attorney's fees from the estate for services rendered to Dennis and also filed an application for funeral and burial expenses on behalf of Knorr, whom she did not represent. The trial court denied her application for attorney's fees, finding she was not entitled to compensation from the estate and that her filings were groundless and in bad faith. The court subsequently sanctioned Roux $6,800 in attorney's fees for Ford, the estate's administrator, and an additional $2,500 to deter future groundless filings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying Roux's attorney's fees, imposing sanctions, and setting the supersedeas bond.

Estate AdministrationAttorney SanctionsAppellate ProcedureProbate LitigationFrivolous FilingsAttorney's Fees DisputeAbuse of DiscretionTexas Estates CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeRules of Civil Procedure
References
45
Case No. 10-14-00157-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

Thomas H. Sinclair v. Estate of Fernando Ramirez and Eva Ramirez, Individually, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Fernando Ramirez, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a wrongful death and survivorship action. Appellant Thomas H. Sinclair challenges the verdict in favor of the Estate of Fernando Ramirez and Eva Ramirez. Fernando Ramirez died after an altercation at Sinclair's cabaret, following heavy drinking. The jury found Sinclair partly responsible, but the appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the appellees failed to present legally sufficient causation evidence directly connecting Sinclair’s purported negligence with the decedent’s death due to the lack of expert medical testimony ruling out other plausible causes.

NegligenceProximate CauseWrongful DeathSurvivorship ActionExpert TestimonyMedical CausationBlunt Force Head InjuriesAlcohol IntoxicationAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency
References
37
Case No. NO. 14-22-00879-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2024

Lasonthia Sandles, Individually as as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Christine Rollins v. Deanna Louise Laskoskie, as Administrator of the Estates of George Delbert Laskoskie, Sr., and Louise Clymer Laskoskie

Lasonthia Sandles appealed a no-evidence summary judgment in her claims against Deanna Louise Laskoskie, administrator of the estates of George and Louise Laskoskie, stemming from the fatal injury of Christine Rollins. Rollins, an in-home caregiver for the Laskoskies, died after being attacked by animals on their property, with conflicting theories on whether dogs initiated the attack before feral hogs. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Sandles's expert report on dog involvement was conclusory and lacked scientific basis. The court found insufficient evidence, beyond mere surmise, to establish causation by the dogs for Sandles's claims of strict liability, negligent handling, or premises liability. The judgment highlighted that abundant evidence pointed towards wild hogs as the primary cause of Rollins's death.

Summary Judgment AppealNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentExpert Testimony ReliabilityConclusory EvidenceCausation ElementStrict Liability ClaimNegligent Handling ClaimPremises Liability ClaimAnimal Attack LitigationFeral Hog Attack
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02568
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2019

Peterson v. Estate of John Rozansky

Elaine M. Peterson and David Peterson (later his estate) sued the Estate of John Rozansky for personal injuries after David Peterson was struck by Rozansky's vehicle. Rozansky had previously declined deposition citing dementia and subsequently died from Alzheimer's. Plaintiffs sought Rozansky's medical records, but the Supreme Court granted a protective order and denied plaintiffs' motion to strike the defendant's answer, a decision upheld upon reargument. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, ruling that plaintiffs failed to show Rozansky's condition was 'in controversy' for CPLR 3121 (a) purposes, and neither Rozansky nor his estate waived physician-patient privilege. A dissenting opinion argued that Rozansky's refusal to be deposed due to dementia did place his condition in controversy, warranting medical record disclosure.

Personal InjuryMedical Records DiscoveryPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeProtective OrderDiscovery SanctionsStriking AnswerDementiaAlzheimer's DiseaseAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 14-18-00967-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

Werner Enterprises, Inc. and Shiraz A. Ali v. Jennifer Blake, Individually and as Next Friend for Nathan Blake, and as Heir of the Estate of Zachery Blake, And Eldridge Moak, in His Capacity as Guardian of the Estate of Briana Blake

A Texas appellate court affirmed a $100 million judgment against Werner Enterprises, Inc. and its driver, Shiraz A. Ali, following a fatal truck accident on an icy Interstate 20. The plaintiffs, including Jennifer Blake and the guardian of Brianna Blake's estate, sued for negligence, leading to a jury finding of liability against both Ali and Werner. The court upheld the findings of Ali's negligence and Werner's direct liability for negligent training and supervision, rejecting arguments related to the 'respondeat superior admission rule'. The judgment also affirmed the jury's apportionment of responsibility and the substantial award for future medical expenses for Brianna Blake, who suffered severe traumatic brain injury.

Trucking AccidentNegligenceVicarious LiabilityDirect LiabilityNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionNegligent TrainingComparative ResponsibilityJury Charge ErrorExpert Testimony
References
153
Case No. 04-08-00554-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2009

Barbara Jane Irwin v. Mike Irwin, as Representative of the Estate of Richard Lee Irwin

This appeal concerns a summary judgment in favor of the Estate of Richard Lee Irwin against his ex-wife, Barbara Jane Irwin. Richard, an employee of the DEA, had designated Barbara as the primary beneficiary of his FEGLIP life insurance policy, with his sons Mike and John as contingent beneficiaries. After their divorce, Richard updated his will to exclude Barbara but never changed his life insurance beneficiary designation. Upon Richard's death, Barbara received the policy proceeds. Mike, representing Richard's estate, sued Barbara to recover the proceeds, claiming the estate had standing. The trial court granted summary judgment for the estate, imposing a constructive trust on the proceeds. The appellate court reversed and remanded the decision, ruling that the estate lacked standing as it was not a designated beneficiary and life insurance proceeds are nontestamentary assets. The court noted that Mike and John, as contingent beneficiaries, would be the proper plaintiffs.

Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA)Beneficiary DesignationDivorce DecreeEstate StandingConstructive TrustLife Insurance ProceedsSummary Judgment AppealNontestamentary AssetsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. 04-06-00417-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2008

Sylvia Casas, Ind. Substantively Consolidated Bankruptcy Estates of Fountain View, Inc. as Successor to Summit Care Corporation, Summit Care Texas, L.P. D/B/A Comanche Trail Nursing Center and Summit Care Management Texas and Robert Gundling, Ind. v. Rosamarie Paradez, as the Administrator and Heir at Law of the Estate of Tranquilino Mendoza

This case involves a medical malpractice survival action initiated by Rosamarie Paradez, daughter of the deceased Tranquilino Mendoza, against Sylvia Casas, Robert Gundling, and the consolidated bankruptcy estates of Fountain View, Inc. (successor to Summit Care Corp. and Summit Care Texas, L.P., operators of Comanche Trail Nursing Center). Mendoza, an 81-year-old nursing home resident, suffered severe injuries after being beaten by a violent roommate, allegedly due to the appellants' negligence. The appellants challenged various aspects of the trial court's judgment, including the denial of new trial motions, sufficiency of damages, excessive awards, and the application of damages caps. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the damages awarded for pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment, and finding no error in the application of the damages cap or the finding of negligence against Gundling.

Medical MalpracticeNursing Home NegligencePersonal InjurySurvival ActionAppellate ReviewJury ArgumentDamages CapFactual SufficiencyMental AnguishPhysical Impairment
References
35
Case No. 2021-03-0083
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2025

Shurina, George v. FedEx Ground

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an estate, through its personal representative, can litigate a workers' compensation claim pro se in Tennessee. Mary Christina Shurina, representing the estate of Gregory Joseph Shurina, appealed a trial court's order mandating legal representation. The Appeals Board affirmed, citing statutory and regulatory requirements that artificial entities like estates must be represented by a licensed attorney. The Board emphasized that representing an estate in court constitutes the unauthorized practice of law for a non-attorney. The decision underscores the legal imperative for estates to engage counsel in workers' compensation proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPro SeEstate LawLegal RepresentationAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawUnauthorized Practice of LawTennessee LawDecedent's Estate
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,701 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