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. M2018-00132-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2018

Darrin M. Dixon v. Alan Wayne Chrisco

Purchasers Darrin and Teresa Dixon sued sellers Alan and Teddi Chrisco alleging intentional misrepresentation, a violation of the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure Act (TRPDA), and fraudulent concealment concerning a railroad right-of-way and a planned second track on the property. The trial court dismissed misrepresentation and TRPDA claims but granted judgment to the Dixons for fraudulent concealment of the second track, awarding $15,000. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the fraudulent concealment claim related to the right-of-way's extent, citing the purchasers' failure to exercise ordinary diligence. However, the court reversed the $15,000 damages award for the fraudulent concealment of the railroad expansion, finding insufficient proof of the property's actual diminished value at the time of the transaction.

Real PropertyFraudulent ConcealmentMisrepresentationTennessee Residential Property Disclosure ActRight-of-WayRailroad ExpansionCaveat EmptorProperty ValueDamagesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. 01-02-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2003

Elenora S. Robinson v. Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corp.

Elenora S. Robinson was injured in October 1997 while working for Ultramar Diamond Shamrock Corp. She sued Ultramar for negligence in December 2001, alleging fraudulent concealment regarding workers' compensation coverage which led her to delay filing suit. Ultramar moved for summary judgment, citing the two-year statute of limitations and arguing against Robinson's claims. The trial court granted Ultramar's motion. On appeal, Robinson contended that Ultramar was not entitled to summary judgment due to issues with evidence and her fraudulent concealment defense. The Court of Appeals denied Robinson's motion for rehearing and affirmed the summary judgment, finding Robinson failed to raise a fact issue on her fraudulent concealment defense.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentFraudulent ConcealmentEquitable EstoppelAppellate ReviewTexas LawEmployment LawPersonal Injury
References
7
Case No. 14-09-00335-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2010

Debra Markwardt v. Texas Industries, Inc.

Debra Markwardt appealed a summary judgment in favor of Texas Industries, Inc. (TXI) in her suit for trespass, nuisance, negligence, and gross negligence, alleging damages arising from emissions from TXI’s cement plant. The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding her claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Markwardt argued the nuisance was temporary, the discovery rule applied, and the continuing-tort and fraudulent-concealment doctrines should avoid the limitations bar. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding Markwardt alleged a permanent nuisance, knew or should have known of her claims more than two years before filing suit, and that neither the continuing-tort nor fraudulent-concealment doctrines were applicable.

NuisanceTrespassNegligenceGross NegligenceStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RulePermanent NuisanceTemporary NuisanceFraudulent ConcealmentContinuing Tort
References
28
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07932 [144 AD3d 993]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2016

Markowits v. Friedman

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order in a case involving a dispute over the sale of interests in home health care companies. Plaintiffs, Sara and Alexander Markowits and their companies, alleged breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, claiming the Friedmans concealed pending actions and investigations. The Supreme Court had granted summary judgment to some defendants, dismissed parts of the complaint, and compelled arbitration. The Appellate Division upheld this decision, finding the defendants proved their entitlement to judgment, proposed amendments lacked merit due to no fiduciary duty for fraudulent concealment or aiding and abetting, and the arbitration agreement was valid despite fraud claims related to the broader contract.

Contract DisputeFraudulent InducementSummary JudgmentArbitration AgreementFiduciary DutyAiding and AbettingAppellate ReviewBusiness SaleEmployment LawConfidentiality Agreements
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Majid v. Fielitz

Abdul Majid, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against correctional officers Ralph Fielitz and Robert Acken, alleging assault during his transfer and subsequent fraudulent concealment of evidence. Defendants moved in limine to exclude evidence related to the fraudulent concealment claims, contending its irrelevance to disputed facts and its prejudicial effect. The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, denied the motion. The decision states that the evidence is relevant to the issue of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations regarding Acken's identity, which is an issue for the court to resolve, not a jury. A subsequent Rule 403 determination will be made if equitable tolling is found.

Inmate RightsPrison AssaultFraudulent ConcealmentEquitable TollingStatute of Limitations42 U.S.C. 1983Correctional FacilityVideo EvidenceMotion in LimineFederal Procedure
References
18
Case No. 04-98-00477-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1999

Bryan Barnhill v. Integrated Health Services, Inc.

Bryan Barnhill appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Integrated Health Services, Inc. Barnhill suffered a back injury at work and subsequently sued his employer, initially naming Normandy Terrace, Inc. and later Riverside Healthcare, Inc. and Preferred Care, Inc., before finally identifying Integrated Health Services, Inc. as his employer. Integrated moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, which Barnhill countered with a fraudulent concealment defense. The appellate court found that Barnhill presented genuine issues of material fact regarding fraudulent concealment, given that Integrated was aware of the lawsuit and had business connections with other named defendants. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary Judgment AppealWorkers' Compensation DisputeStatute of LimitationsFraudulent Concealment DefenseEmployer IdentificationDiscovery IssuesAppellate ProcedureEquitable EstoppelPleading AmendmentsNon-subscriber Employer
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnhill v. Integrated Health Services, Inc.

Justice Paul W. Green dissents in a summary judgment appeal concerning Bryan Barnhill's claim against Integrated Health Services, Inc. (IHS). The majority found a fact issue regarding Barnhill's argument that IHS fraudulently concealed its identity, thereby preventing his claim from being time-barred. Justice Green argues that no evidence supports IHS having a duty to disclose its identity or purposefully concealing it, and thus the summary judgment in favor of IHS should have been affirmed. He critiques the majority's reasoning for finding a duty to disclose based on workers' compensation notice requirements and an attorney's knowledge, deeming it an extraordinary holding without precedent. Green concludes that Barnhill failed to demonstrate IHS acted fraudulently or that he lacked means to discover IHS's involvement, asserting the summary judgment should stand.

Summary JudgmentFraudulent ConcealmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelDissenting OpinionPersonal InjuryTexas Civil PracticeAppellate LawEmployer LiabilityDiscovery Issues
References
8
Case No. 05-18-01513-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2020

Rebecca Potter, Individually and as Next Friend of Austyn Vasquez, a Minor, and Richard Potter v. HP Texas 1 LLC D/B/A HPA TX LLC

Rebecca and Richard Potter sued HP Texas 1 LLC (HPA parties) and Coats Group Real Estate Co. (Coats) after suffering illnesses due to toxic mold in a leased home with an option to purchase. They challenged the trial court's take-nothing summary judgment on claims including fraudulent concealment, fraud, Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, negligence per se, and breach of contract. The core issue before the appellate court was the enforceability of an "as is" provision in the residential lease with an option to purchase. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the "as is" clause was enforceable and negated the causation element of the Potters' claims. This decision was based on findings that the conditions were visible or discoverable by inspection, and there was no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment by the appellees.

Rent-to-ownResidential LeaseAs Is ClauseFraudulent ConcealmentDeceptive Trade Practices ActNegligent MisrepresentationNegligenceBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentCausation
References
30
Case No. E2015-01890-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2016

Classic City Mechanical, Inc. v. Potter South East, LLC

This case originates from a state construction project involving Classic City Mechanical, Inc. (subcontractor) and Potter South East, LLC (prime contractor). Classic City sued Potter for non-payment, leading the trial court to rule that Potter committed the first material breach and award Classic City compensatory damages and interest. Potter appealed, challenging the finding of its material breach and the denial of its damage claims for alleged delays caused by Classic City. Classic City cross-appealed regarding the interest rate, dismissal of fraudulent concealment, and denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on liability and damages but modified the interest rate for Classic City, remanding for recalculation, and upheld the dismissal of the fraudulent concealment claim and the denial of attorney's fees.

Construction ContractSubcontractor DisputeMaterial BreachPrompt Pay ActContractual InterestLiquidated DamagesFraudulent ConcealmentAttorney's FeesConstruction Delay ClaimsSurety Bond
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMahan v. Greenwood

John McMahan appealed from summary judgments granted in favor of Howard Greenwood, Howard Greenwood Investments, Inc., Fine Rides, Inc., Circular Processing, Inc. (collectively, "the Greenwood defendants"), and J. Randle Henderson. McMahan's lawsuit arose from a business venture and alleged fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The court affirmed the summary judgment for the Greenwood defendants, upholding a prior settlement agreement and release against McMahan's claims of fraudulent inducement and duress. However, the court reversed in part the summary judgment for Henderson, finding that the release did not cover him and that McMahan raised sufficient fact issues regarding fraudulent concealment and an attorney-client relationship for claims including fraud, malpractice, and negligent misrepresentation. The case was remanded for further proceedings on these specific claims against Henderson.

Summary JudgmentFraudulent InducementRelease AgreementAttorney-Client RelationshipStatute of LimitationsLegal MalpracticeBreach of Fiduciary DutyNegligent MisrepresentationConspiracyContract Law
References
126
Showing 1-10 of 616 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