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. 2022-01-0054
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2023

Espinosa, Rodolfo v. Maestro’s Pro Services, LLC

Laura Estrella de Espinosa sought death benefits following the passing of her husband, Rodolfo Espinosa, who died from heatstroke while employed by Maestro’s Pro Services, LLC. The employer, being uninsured for workers’ compensation, did not appear at the hearing. Mrs. Espinosa testified regarding her husband’s work and the circumstances leading to his death. However, the Court concluded that she failed to meet her burden of proof by not providing expert medical testimony establishing that her husband's death arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, specifically that the work-related cause contributed more than fifty percent. Consequently, the Court denied the requested benefits, though it did tax the filing fee against Maestro’s Pro Services.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHeatstrokeCardiac ArrestMedical CausationBurden of ProofUninsured EmployerEmployee DeathTennessee LawFactual Insufficiency
References
0
Case No. NO. 12-09-00283-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2011

the Glidden Company D/B/A ICI Paints, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. CDNE, Inc. D/B/A All Pro Services, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

The Glidden Company appealed a trial court judgment awarding CDNE, Inc. damages for defective paint and attorney's fees, while All Pro Services cross-appealed regarding Glidden's award. The primary dispute centered on interpreting the 1582 Agreement concerning reimbursement for remediation costs incurred due to failed paint. The appellate court found the term 'costs' ambiguous and upheld the trial court's decision that All Pro Services was entitled to reimbursement at a rate of $32.50 per hour, including overtime. The court also affirmed that Glidden had effectively disclaimed consequential damages and that the replacement paint was not provided free of charge. However, the court reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration of Glidden's attorney's fees.

Contract InterpretationBreach of ContractConsequential DamagesAttorney's FeesContract AmbiguityReimbursementOvertime WagesDisclaimer ClauseSales AgreementPainting Contract
References
59
Case No. 02-23-00271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Russell Scott Donaldson, as Next Friend of His Grandchildren: L.A., R.A., A.A. and R.S.A., the Heirs of Robert John Aquino, III v. Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc.

Robert John Aquino, III, sued his employer, Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc., for premises liability and employment-related negligence after sustaining an injury from a nail at a worksite. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment on the premises liability claim and a take-nothing judgment on all claims, despite the motion only addressing premises liability. Aquino's heirs, through their next friend, appealed, contending that evidence existed to create a fact issue on the premises liability claim and that the judgment on the negligence claim exceeded the scope of the motion. The appellate court found that Aquino's deposition testimony provided more than a scintilla of evidence that Pro-Craft's crew created the dangerous condition, thus supporting an inference of knowledge. Additionally, the court ruled that the summary judgment on the negligence claim was erroneous as it was not addressed in the underlying motion. The trial court's summary judgment was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Premises LiabilityEmployment NegligenceSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence MotionDangerous ConditionEmployer LiabilityTexas Appellate LawAppellate ReviewCase ReversalCase Remand
References
20
Case No. 07-15-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2016

Mohammed Fawwaz Shoukfeh, M.D., P.A., D/B/A Texas Cardiac Center v. James G. Grattan and Texas Workforce Commission

Dr. Grattan filed a wage claim against Mohammed Fawwaz Shoukfeh, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Texas Cardiac Center (TCC) under the Texas Payday Act, alleging miscalculation of his pro rata share of overhead expenses. The dispute arose because TCC included Dr. Qaddour's salary in overhead but excluded him from the pro rata division among physicians for expense calculation. After various appeals, the Texas Workforce Commission ultimately awarded Dr. Grattan $125,988.81 in unpaid wages. TCC then sought a trial de novo, where the 99th District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Grattan and the TWC. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was substantial evidence that Dr. Grattan's employment agreement did not permit TCC to deduct more than a pro rata share based on all physicians employed.

Wage claimTexas Payday ActEmployment agreementOverhead expensesPro rata shareSummary judgmentAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceContract interpretationPhysician compensation
References
23
Case No. E2000-01750-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2001

Melissa Suzanne Dew v. ProTemp

This case concerns Melissa Suzanne Dew's appeal against Pro-Temp, a temporary employment agency, following a grant of summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge claim. Dew alleged that Pro-Temp terminated her employment in retaliation for asserting worker's compensation rights after a work-related finger injury. The Trial Court ruled that Dew failed to establish that Pro-Temp terminated her employment or that there was a causal connection between her worker's compensation claim and her removal from an assignment at Eagle Bend Manufacturing, Inc. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Pro-Temp successfully negated the essential elements of Dew's claim, including the termination of employment and the causal link, as Dew was offered other assignments and later placed in a permanent position with another company with Pro-Temp's assistance, and Pro-Temp was unaware of her pending surgery at the time of her removal from Eagle Bend.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentEmployment terminationCausal connectionWork performanceTemporary employmentEmployer liabilityCourt of AppealsAffirmed judgment
References
14
Case No. 09-21-00178-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

L&S Pro-Line, LLC and Lee Burkett v. Garrett Gagliano, Snook Holdings, LLC, and Tactical Automation, Inc.

This case involves a business dispute of a two-member Texas limited liability company, L&S Pro-Line (L&S). Appellants, L&S and Lee Burkett, appealed the trial court’s judgments for Appellees Garrett Gagliano, Snook Holdings, LLC, and Tactical Automation, Inc. The core issues included Burkett's attempt to purchase Gagliano's membership interest under the Company Agreement and Tactical Automation's standing as a third-party beneficiary. The Court of Appeals concluded that Burkett effectively exercised his option to buy Gagliano's interest and that Tactical Automation was not an intended third-party beneficiary. The court affirmed certain portions, reversed and rendered others (particularly concerning breach of contract and Tactical's damages), and reversed and remanded for further proceedings on issues like breach of fiduciary duty prior to the effective buyout.

Business DisputeLimited Liability CompanyMembership Interest BuyoutBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate LawSummary JudgmentCorporate GovernancePartnership Dispute
References
59
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07367 [211 AD3d 1582]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2022

Bregaudit v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Ctr.

Plaintiff Edison Bregaudit sought damages after slipping on ice at a facility owned by Loretto Health and Rehabilitation Center, which contracted Pro Scapes, Inc. for snow removal. Pro Scapes initially moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, a motion initially granted by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed parts of the lower court's decision. The Appellate Division found a question of fact existed regarding whether Pro Scapes negligently created or exacerbated the dangerous icy condition by using inadequate deicer, which could lead to refreezing. Consequently, the court denied parts of Pro Scapes' motion for summary judgment and reinstated the amended complaint and cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Pro Scapes.

Snow and IceSlip and FallPremises LiabilitySnow Removal ContractSummary JudgmentDuty of CareTort LiabilityExacerbated ConditionNegligenceRefreezing
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1998

Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Southwest Aggregates, Inc.

This appeal addresses an insurer's (Alliance) duty to defend its insured (Southwest Aggregates) in silicosis lawsuits and the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association's (Guaranty Association) obligations after another insurer (ECC) became insolvent. Key issues included whether an insurer's defense duty is pro rata for occurrences spanning multiple policy periods, if the right to a defense must be exhausted against solvent insurers before the Guaranty Association's duty triggers, and the availability of attorney's fees. The court affirmed that an insurer owes a complete, not pro rata, defense and that the right to defense must be exhausted against solvent insurers. However, the court reversed the denial of attorney's fees to the Guaranty Association, holding they are recoverable for a subrogated breach of contract claim.

Insurance LawDuty to DefendPro Rata AllocationExhaustion DoctrineImpaired InsurerGuaranty AssociationSubrogation RightsAttorney's FeesSummary Judgment AppealContract Breach
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brock v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement from a product liability action, specifically regarding the entitlement of the plaintiff's attorneys to a pro rata share of counsel fees from the Special Disability Fund. In the original settlement, plaintiff Leonard Brock assigned claims against the Fund to his attorneys, Pattison, Sampson, Ginsberg & Griffin, P. C., while Liberty Mutual Insurance Company waived its workers' compensation lien. Supreme Court initially ruled that Liberty Mutual's lien waiver precluded any further claims against the Fund for attorney fees. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the Special Disability Fund benefited from the plaintiff's litigation by being relieved of its liability to Liberty Mutual for payments after 104 weeks of disability. Consequently, the Fund is liable for a pro rata share of the litigation expenses, and the matter was remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings to determine this benefit.

Product LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundAttorney FeesSettlement AgreementLien WaiverPro Rata ShareReimbursementAppellate ReviewUnjust Enrichment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carminucci v. Pepsico, Inc.

The intervener plaintiff Madrone Excavating Company, Inc., by its subrogee ITT Hartford Accident Indemnity Company appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The original order determined that New York Workers’ Compensation Law applied, denying full reimbursement to ITT Hartford for benefits paid to Mark T. Carminucci and compelling ITT Hartford to pay a pro rata share of litigation expenses. The appellate court reversed, ruling that Connecticut law applies because benefits were paid under Connecticut's Workers’ Compensation Act. Under Connecticut law, ITT Hartford, as subrogee, is entitled to full reimbursement of both past and the present value of future workers’ compensation benefits. The court further held that ITT Hartford is not required to share litigation expenses on a pro rata basis. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for a hearing to determine the total reimbursement amount.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationReimbursementChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentAppellate ReviewLitigation Expenses
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 637 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