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. 03-04-00050-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. v. the Texas FAIR Plan Association The Texas Department of Insurance And Jose Montemayor, Commissioner of Insurance

Appellant Al Boenker Insurance Agency, Inc. appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of the Texas FAIR Plan Association (FAIR Plan). Al Boenker had challenged a bulletin issued by FAIR Plan, which restricted fees insurance agencies could charge for homeowners insurance applications and allowed for termination of agencies violating the contract. Al Boenker argued that FAIR Plan violated the separation-of-powers doctrine and exceeded its statutory authority. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that FAIR Plan is not a state agency subject to the Texas Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking provisions and acted within its authority derived from the FAIR Plan Act and its Plan of Operation by contractually limiting agent compensation and establishing conditions for agent termination.

Administrative LawInsurance LawContract LawSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctionAgency AuthoritySeparation of PowersStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of Appeals
References
16
Case No. E2011-00831-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2012

Cristy Irene Fair v. Stephen Lynn Cochran

The case of Cristy Irene Fair v. Stephen Lynn Cochran involved an appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County. The Trial Court dismissed Fair's motor vehicle accident claim because proof of service for her summons was not returned to the clerk until 412 days after issuance, failing to comply promptly with Tenn. R. Civ. P. 4.03(1). Consequently, Fair could not rely on Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 to toll the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, emphasizing the necessity of strict compliance with procedural rules for service of process.

Statute of LimitationsService of ProcessMotion to DismissCivil Procedure RulesAppellate ReviewJudgment AffirmedTennessee LawMotor Vehicle AccidentProof of ServiceTimeliness
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galveston County Fair & Rodeo v. Kauffman

Travis Kauffman entered his steer "Reebok" in The Galveston County Fair and Rodeo steer show. After winning a class, the steer was later disqualified due to allegations of "airing," an unethical fitting practice. Daniel S. Kauffman, Jr., Travis's father, sued the Fair alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), breach of contract, negligence, and gross negligence. A jury found in favor of Kauffman on all claims, with recovery elected under the DTPA. The Fair appealed, challenging aspects of the jury charge, evidence sufficiency, damages, consumer status under DTPA, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment but modified it by deleting a $1,500 damage award related to negligence.

DTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActNegligenceBreach of ContractSteer DisqualificationAnimal Show EthicsConsumer ProtectionAppellate ReviewDamagesMental Anguish
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, LLC v. Tveyes, Inc.

Fox News Network, LLC filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against TVEyes, Inc., a media-monitoring service. The district court previously upheld TVEyes' core service as fair use but reserved judgment on four specific features: archiving, e-mailing, downloading, and date-time search. In this renewed decision, the court ruled that TVEyes' archiving function is fair use. The e-mailing function can also be fair use, provided TVEyes implements adequate protective measures. However, the court found that the downloading and date-time search functions are not fair use, concluding they go beyond TVEyes' transformative purpose and pose undue risks to Fox News' copyrights and derivative businesses.

Copyright InfringementFair Use DefenseMedia MonitoringTransformative UseSummary JudgmentArchivingEmail SharingVideo DownloadingDate-Time SearchDigital Rights
References
23
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00606 [191 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Pisarski v. Accurate Plumbing & Heating Co.

Claimant Michael Pisarski established a workers' compensation claim for occupational bilateral knee and shoulder injuries after retiring as a union plumber. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately set the date of disablement as July 12, 2016, and a Worker's Compensation Law Judge ruled Norguard Insurance Company, which covered the employer during Pisarski's last employment, was the liable carrier, as no active policy was found on the disablement date. Norguard appealed, distinguishing its case from Matter of Cammarata, where the employer had ceased business. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board erred by not determining the business status of Accurate Plumbing and Heating Co. on the date of disablement. This determination is crucial to establish whether Accurate Plumbing was required to maintain an insurance policy or if the Uninsured Employers Fund should be responsible. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseDate of DisablementInsurance Carrier LiabilityUninsured Employers FundAppellate ReviewRemittalBusiness Status DeterminationPolicy CoverageKnee Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glendale Construction Services, Inc. v. Accurate Air Systems, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning an indemnity contract between Glendale Construction Services, Inc. (contractor) and Accurate Air Systems, Inc. (subcontractor), following a worker's electrocution. Carol Brooks, the worker's wife, sued several parties, including Glendale and Accurate Air, for negligence. Glendale, after settling with Brooks' wife, filed a third-party action against Accurate Air for contribution, indemnity, and attorney fees. The trial court granted summary judgment for Accurate Air, finding the contract did not indemnify Glendale for its own negligence. The appellate court affirmed, applying the express negligence doctrine, and also denied Glendale's claims for attorney fees, concluding that Accurate Air was not obligated to indemnify Glendale.

Indemnity contractExpress negligence doctrineSummary judgmentSubcontractor liabilityContractor liabilityWorker's compensation barAttorney feesContract interpretationTexas lawAppellate court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

T & M Meat Fair, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 174

The plaintiffs, T & M Meat Fair, Inc. and its owners, filed a class action lawsuit in New York state court against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) unions and affiliated funds, alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty related to their participation in ERISA plans. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing original jurisdiction under ERISA and LMRA. The plaintiffs then moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that federal jurisdiction was improper and also sought attorneys' fees and costs. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that federal jurisdiction was proper based on at least one claim arising under ERISA in the amended complaint, and also denied the request for attorneys' fees and costs. The court explicitly stated that Count III, asserting rights under ERISA for Milano, established federal jurisdiction.

ERISALMRARemoval JurisdictionFederal CourtState CourtRemand MotionClass ActionLabor UnionPension FundsHealth Funds
References
14
Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Significant
Feb 03, 2009

Mario Almaraz, Joyce Guzman vs. Environmental Recovery Services (a.k.a. ENVIROSERVE), State Compensation Insurance Fund, Milpitas Unified School District, Permissibly Self-Insured, Keenan & Associates, Adjusting Agent

The Appeals Board held that the AMA Guides portion of the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities is rebuttable by showing that an impairment rating based on the AMA Guides would be inequitable, disproportionate, and not a fair and accurate measure of the employee’s permanent disability.

AMA Guidesrebuttable presumptionpermanent disability rating2005 Scheduleimpairment determinationmedical opinionevidentiary standardequitable awardvocational specialistsactivities of daily living
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walling v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Ry.

The case determines whether railway trainees ("cubs" and "posters") are considered "employees" under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The plaintiff Administrator sought injunctive relief to compel the defendant railway to comply with the Act for these trainees, arguing they should be compensated and records kept. The court found that trainees primarily work for their own benefit and receive no measurable benefit for the company, thus lacking a contract of employment. Payments made to "cub" trainees were deemed gratuities or incentive pay, not wages that would establish an employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the court held that neither "cub" nor "poster" trainees are "employees" under the Act, and even if they were, the company's current practices largely comply with the Act. Therefore, judgment was entered for the defendant railway, denying the Administrator's request for injunctive relief.

Fair Labor Standards ActEmployee StatusTraineesRailway IndustryCubbingPostingGratuity vs. WagesInjunctive ReliefEmployer-Employee RelationshipContract of Employment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jody Fair, Inc. v. Dubinsky

Plaintiff Jody Fair, Inc. moved to remand its action from federal court back to the New York State Supreme Court. The defendants, International Ladies Garment Workers Union and Local 25, had removed the case, alleging it involved a claim under the Labor Management Relations Act, specifically section 303(b) concerning secondary boycotts. Plaintiff argued its complaint alleged a common law prima facie tort under New York law, asserting malicious intent by the unions to coerce payment of a debt from a separate entity, Aansworth Ltd., for which Jody Fair, Inc. was not liable. The court granted the motion to remand, ruling that the complaint, fairly read, alleges a prima facie tort at common law and does not necessarily arise under federal labor law. The court also noted that the specific labor activities in question were exempt from federal secondary boycott bans under section 8(e) due to the needle trade exemption, suggesting no federal remedy existed.

Prima Facie TortLabor LawFederal JurisdictionState JurisdictionRemand MotionSecondary BoycottNeedle Trade ExemptionLabor Management Relations ActCommon LawUnfair Labor Practice
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,630 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