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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Becton Dickinson and Co. v. Usrey

This interlocutory appeal concerns the propriety of certifying a class action of Texas healthcare workers who sustained needlesticks from defectively designed syringes and needle-bearing medical devices manufactured by Becton Dickinson and Company and Sherwood Medical Company. The class sought reimbursement for post-needlestick testing costs, excluding claims for emotional distress or infection. The trial court certified the class, but the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that common issues, particularly causation and comparative responsibility, do not predominate over individual issues as required by Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, especially under the more conservative approach mandated by Southwestern Refining Co. v. Bernal. The court found that needlestick injuries often involve unique circumstances, including the fault of the healthcare worker, employers, and third parties, which necessitate individual analysis. Furthermore, the trial court's proposed plan for handling individual comparative fault issues was deemed unfair and unduly restrictive.

Product LiabilityClass ActionNeedlestick InjuryHealthcare WorkersDefective DesignCausationComparative FaultRule 42Texas LawInterlocutory Appeal
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Life Insurance Co. of Southwest v. Brister

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The class, represented by M.C. Brister, Jr., comprises employees of Texas Steel Company who received workers' compensation benefits but were allegedly denied disability benefits under an Employee Benefit Plan issued by Life Insurance Company of the Southwest. The claims involved breach of contract and misrepresentation. Appellants contended that the class did not meet the requirements for certification under TEX.R.CIV.P. 42(b) and that the trial court improperly excluded evidence regarding a prior federal class action settlement. The appellate court affirmed the class certification, finding that common issues, primarily the interpretation of the Employee Benefit Plan and alleged statutory violations, predominated over individual issues, making a class action superior. While acknowledging the error in excluding evidence of the federal lawsuit, the court determined it was not a reversible error as it did not contribute to an improper judgment.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealWorkers' CompensationDisability BenefitsBreach of ContractMisrepresentationEmployee Benefit PlanTexas Insurance CodeDeceptive Trade PracticesRule 42
References
38
Case No. 03-99-00766-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2000

Henry Schein, Inc. Easy Dental Systems, Inc. And Dentisoft, Inc. v. Shelly E. Stromboe, D.D.S. Alan B. Helig, D.D.S. Bart Presti, D.D.S. Kelly Presti And Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S. on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

This is an interlocutory appeal from a trial court order certifying a class action against Henry Schein, Inc., Easy Dental Systems, Inc., and Dentisoft, Inc. The appellees, a group of dentists, allege defects in dental office management software, misrepresentations about technical support, and unsolicited software billing. The appellants contended that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the class due to failures to satisfy prerequisites under Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding that common issues predominated over individual issues, and the class representatives met typicality and adequacy requirements, and Texas law was properly applied.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealSoftware DefectsBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyFraudulent MisrepresentationDeceptive Trade Practices ActPromissory EstoppelClass CertificationPredominance of Common Issues
References
33
Case No. ADJ10296202, ADJ10296203
Regular
Jan 29, 2020

ANDRIA STREETER vs. GOODWILL SERVING THE PEOPLE OF SOUTHERN LOS ANGELES, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns defendant's petition for reconsideration or removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The Board denied the petition, finding the decision contained both a threshold issue (injury AOE/COE) making it final for reconsideration, and an interlocutory issue (treatment outside the medical provider network). Because the petition primarily challenged the interlocutory issue, it was evaluated under the more stringent removal standard. The Board found no evidence of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalJoint Findings of FactInjury AOE/COEThreshold IssueInterlocutory IssueMedical Provider NetworkSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
4
Case No. ADJ10607792
Regular
Sep 30, 2019

DANAE MARTINEZ vs. TRUE LEAF FARMS/PACIFIC RISK MANAGEMENT, PSI, administered by PACIFIC CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. While the WCJ's initial order addressed a threshold issue (injury AOE/COE), the applicant's petition only challenged interlocutory issues regarding QME panels. The WCAB treated this as a request for removal, which is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted. Because the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy for future interlocutory issues, the petition was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationReport of Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgethreshold issuefinal decisioninjury arising out of and in the course of employmentAOE/COEinterlocutory issuesremoval standardqualified medical evaluator
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kappel v. Fisher Bros., 6th Ave. Corp.

The plaintiff, an employee of Akron Wrecking Corp., sustained personal injuries during the demolition of the Zeigfeld Theatre when he fell after being struck by an object. He initiated a negligence action against the owner, Fisher Bros., 6th Ave. Corp., and its subsidiary, Fibro Construction Corp., alleging violations of Labor Law § 241. Following a jury verdict against the defendants on the issue of liability, an interlocutory judgment was entered. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and dismissed both the main complaint and the third-party complaint. The appellate court concluded that an owner or general contractor is not liable under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 without control over the work, placing the responsibility for safety devices specific to a subcontractor's work on the subcontractor.

NegligencePersonal InjuryDemolition AccidentLabor LawWorkplace SafetySubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate ReviewInterlocutory Judgment
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American National Insurance Co. v. Cannon

Plaintiffs, former insurance agents Frank E. Cannon II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover, filed a class action against American National Insurance Company (ANICO) and American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC). The plaintiffs alleged fraud, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of consumer protection laws, specifically challenging non-compete provisions and advance payment repayment obligations in their agent agreements. The trial court certified two classes related to these claims. On interlocutory appeal, the appellate court reviewed the class certification order, determining whether common issues predominated over individual ones, as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The court found that individual determinations were necessary for the reasonableness of non-compete clauses and for assessing reliance on oral representations regarding advance payments. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the class certification requirements were not satisfied and reversed the trial court’s order, remanding the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealNon-Compete ClausesAgent AgreementsAdvance PaymentsDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 42Predominance of Individual IssuesFraud
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soddano v. Anchorage Woods of New Jersey, Inc.

The court granted a motion to dismiss the appeal without costs. The decision sought to be appealed was deemed interlocutory, meaning it did not resolve all issues in the case. Furthermore, the decision did not decide any threshold legal issues. Consequently, the court ruled that such an interlocutory decision is not appealable. This aligns with precedent established in *Matter of Dubnoff v Feathers Sportswear*.

Appeal dismissalInterlocutory decisionNon-appealable decisionThreshold legal issuesAppellate procedureMotion practice
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szarewicz v. Alboro Crane Rental Corp.

The interlocutory judgment from Supreme Court, Kings County, favoring the plaintiff against Alboro Crane Rental Corp. on liability, was unanimously reversed and vacated on appeal. The plaintiff, a structural steel worker employed by Harrod Steel Erectors, was injured when knocked off a steel beam, allegedly due to a negligent crane operator. A key issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the operator and Alboro, which owned and leased the crane to Harrod. The court found insufficient evidence to establish this relationship, noting the operator was not on Alboro's payroll and Alboro lacked control over his work. Consequently, the complaint against Alboro was dismissed, as liability could not be based on the rental agreement or control theory.

Crane accidentliabilityemployer-employee relationshipvicarious liabilitynegligenceleased equipmentappellate reviewjudgment reversalstructural steel workercrane operator control
References
2
Case No. 2014-06-0053
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2015

Bates, Pamela v. Command Center, Inc.

Pamela Bates, an employee, alleged injuries from an assault by an intoxicated co-worker at Command Center, Inc. The employer denied benefits, asserting the assault was not work-related. The trial court, following an expedited hearing, denied Bates's request for medical and temporary disability benefits, concluding the assault was private and lacked a work connection. Bates appealed this interlocutory order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the appeal as untimely, noting the notice of appeal was filed on March 16, 2015, beyond the statutory deadline of March 10, 2015, for the order issued on February 27, 2015. The Board emphasized that timely filing of an appeal notice is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement in civil and workers' compensation cases. The case is remanded for any further necessary proceedings.

Assault at WorkUntimely AppealInterlocutory OrderJurisdictional DefectPro Se LitigantExpedited HearingDenial of Medical BenefitsDenial of Temporary Disability BenefitsStatutory DeadlineRemand
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 12,710 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