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. 14-04-00819-CV; 14-04-01103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2005

in Re: Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc.

Relators, Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc., Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd., and Dealer Computer Services, Inc., filed an appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus after the trial court denied their motion to compel arbitration against Hillcrest Ford Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. The dispute arose from two contracts between DCS and Hillcrest containing arbitration provisions. Hillcrest argued the provisions were unconscionable due to fraudulent inducement, a Michigan forum selection clause, limited remedies, a shortened statute of limitations, and potential prohibitive arbitration costs. The appellate court found that Hillcrest failed to prove either procedural or substantive unconscionability. Additionally, the court ruled that the non-signatories, UCCH and UCC, could compel arbitration under equitable estoppel because Hillcrest's allegations involved substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct by both the non-signatories and the signatory. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal, instructing the trial court to vacate its order and compel arbitration.

ArbitrationMandamusInterlocutory AppealUnconscionabilityForum Selection ClauseChoice of LawStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelNon-SignatoriesContract Law
References
31
Case No. 05-18-00394-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2019

Quality Metrics Partners, LLC, Clearview Diagnostics, LLC, CGK Consulting, LLC, CGK Medical Management, LLC, CGK Medical Ventures, LLC, Brodie Flanders, Michael Morales, Michael Knall, Anthony Kim, and Christopher R. Peyton v. Greg Blasingame Capricia Larson Gabby Consulting, LLC And DX Power Moves Consulting, LLC

Appellants challenged the trial court’s denial of their consolidated motions to compel arbitration. The dispute involves a series of contractual relationships, including a Representative Marketing Agreement, an alleged oral contract, and a Distribution Agreement containing an arbitration provision. The Court determined that QMP and Clearview are intended third-party beneficiaries of the Distribution Agreement, extending the arbitration clause's benefits to their agents. Consequently, all direct claims against the QMP Appellants, as well as their related tort claims, fall within the broad scope of the arbitration provision. The Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for all disputes between the parties to proceed to arbitration.

ArbitrationContract DisputeThird-Party BeneficiaryNon-Signatory ArbitrationScope of ArbitrationFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationTort ClaimsIndependent ContractorMarketing Services
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2004

Claim of Shanbaum v. Alliance Consulting Group

The claimant, a software solution architect for Alliance Consulting Group, sustained an injury on September 11, 2001, while evacuating her apartment located across from her employer's World Trade Center office after the terrorist attacks. Her employer provided and paid for the apartment, which also served as a remote workspace equipped with a company laptop for accessing the main server. On the morning of the incident, the claimant had logged onto her computer, checked work emails, and begun preparing for a meeting. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the apartment functioned as an extension of the employer’s office and that the injury arose within the scope of her employment. This decision was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryTelecommutingHome OfficeWorld Trade Center AttacksSeptember 11Employer LiabilityArising Out Of EmploymentCourse Of Employment
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06389 [210 AD3d 1448]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2022

Smith v. MDA Consulting Engrs., PLLC

Nicholas Smith sued MDA Consulting Engineers, PLLC, for injuries sustained after falling from a foundation wall during construction, alleging Labor Law and common-law negligence violations. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that the defendant was not an owner, contractor, or statutory agent of the Town, and therefore lacked supervisory control over the work or safety measures, absolving them of liability under Labor Law and common-law negligence. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAgency RelationshipConstruction AccidentFall InjurySupervisory ControlCommon-Law NegligenceStatement of Material FactsStatutory Agent
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pochucha v. Galbraith Engineering Consultants, Inc.

The Pochuchas purchased a home in 2003 with a defective french drain system installed in 1995. They initially sued the builder, Bill Cox, in 2005. Bill Cox then designated Galbraith Engineering Consultants, Inc., the system designer, as a responsible third party. The Pochuchas subsequently joined Galbraith as a defendant. Galbraith moved for summary judgment, arguing a ten-year statute of repose barred the claim. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, holding that Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.004(e) provides a sixty-day extension for joining responsible third parties, which applies to statutes of repose.

Statute of ReposeStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentResponsible Third PartyConstruction DefectsReal PropertyCivil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationJoinder of Parties
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ERI Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Swinnea

This case concerns a dispute between former business partners Larry G. Snodgrass and J. Mark Swinnea, who co-owned ERI Consulting Engineers, Inc. and Malmeba Company, Ltd. Snodgrass and ERI bought out Swinnea's interest, but Swinnea was found to have fraudulently induced the agreement and breached fiduciary duties by secretly forming a competing company, Air Quality Associates, and later Brady Environmental. The trial court awarded damages and equitable forfeiture, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Texas held that equitable forfeiture of contractual consideration is an available remedy for fraudulent inducement and breach of fiduciary duty, even without proof of actual damages, and reversed the court of appeals on this point, remanding for further review. Additionally, the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence for some lost profits, reversing the 'take nothing' judgment and remanding for potential remittitur, while affirming that Brady Environmental was not liable for civil conspiracy.

Fiduciary DutyFraudulent InducementEquitable ForfeitureContractual ConsiderationLost ProfitsCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractDamagesRemittiturAppellate Review
References
23
Case No. M2011-02746-COA-R3-CV / 1018991
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2012

Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Commerce

This case involves a dispute between Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. (insured) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (insurer) regarding the proper classification of employees for workers' compensation insurance premiums. Advantage disputed Liberty's reclassification of its employees from 'manufacture of small tools' (3113) to 'machine shop' (3632), and later to 'construction or agricultural machinery mfg.' (3507) for employees working at TAG Manufacturing Company. Advantage contended the correct classification was 'boilermaking' (3620). The Department of Commerce and Insurance ruled in favor of the insurer (Liberty), classifying the work as 3507, which was affirmed by the Chancery Court for Davidson County and subsequently by the Court of Appeals, finding substantial and material evidence to support the Commissioner's decision.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ClassificationEmployee ClassificationPremium AuditAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMaterial EvidenceStatutory InterpretationCode Classification
References
7
Case No. 01-22-00755-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2023

Terracon Consultants, Inc. v. Northern Pride Communications, Inc.

Terracon Consultants, Inc., a professional engineering firm, appealed the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 150.002. Northern Pride Communications, Inc. had sued Terracon for breach of contract and negligence, alleging Terracon failed to obtain the specified number of concrete cylinder samples and failed to retain a sample for further testing during a construction project. Terracon argued that Northern Pride's claims arose from the provision of professional engineering services and thus required a certificate of merit, which Northern Pride did not file. The Court of Appeals agreed, concluding that Northern Pride's allegations implicated Terracon's professional engineering judgment. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for dismissal.

Interlocutory AppealMotion to DismissCertificate of MeritProfessional Engineering ServicesBreach of ContractNegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Occupations CodeConstruction Materials TestingConcrete Testing
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00218 [157 AD3d 1116]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2018

Matter of Joseph v. Atelier Consulting LLC

Claimant Brad Joseph, a construction worker, sought workers' compensation benefits after fracturing his foot while working at a construction site, naming George Villar/Atelier Consulting LLC as his employer. An investigation revealed Atelier was exempt from coverage and lacked workers' compensation insurance at the time of the accident. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge determined an employer-employee relationship existed between Atelier and Joseph, holding Omega Construction Group, Inc., the general contractor, responsible for awards and imposing a $36,000 penalty on Atelier for failing to secure insurance. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship and no error in the Board's refusal to consider an affidavit from Villar.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstruction AccidentInsurance CoveragePenalty ImpositionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAffidavit AdmissibilityCross-Examination RightsGeneral Contractor Liability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 511 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