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. 07-99-0399-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2000

Janice Bartkowiak v. Quantum Chemical Corporation

Janice Bartkowiak appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Quantum Chemical Corporation, stemming from claims of wrongful discharge, sexual harassment, and discrimination during her employment. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo reviewed the trial court's decision, focusing on the applicability of res judicata to Bartkowiak's retaliatory discharge claim, the proper dismissal of her sexual harassment claim due to her failure to report it, and the dismissal of her children's claims for loss of parental consortium. The appellate court found that res judicata barred the retaliatory discharge claim and upheld the dismissal of the sexual harassment claim, noting Quantum's established affirmative defense. Consequently, the claims for loss of parental consortium were also dismissed, as Quantum bore no underlying liability. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentEmployment LawWrongful DischargeSexual HarassmentDiscriminationRes JudicataHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliatory DischargeLabor CodeAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 01-08-00918-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2010

Rasa Floors, LP v. Spring Village Partners, Ltd.

An apartment complex owner (Spring Village Partners, Ltd.) hired a contractor (Rasa Floors, L.P.) to install new flooring. A dispute arose over billing and workmanship, leading Rasa Floors to sue on a sworn account and for breach of contract or quantum meruit, and Spring Village to countersue for breach of contract, warranty, and fraud. A jury found for Spring Village on breach of warranty ($5,000) and for Rasa Floors on quantum meruit ($30,000). The trial court disregarded the quantum meruit finding. The appellate court affirmed the breach of warranty finding, reversed the trial court's disregard of the quantum meruit award, and remanded the case for entry of a new judgment reflecting the offset and for reconsideration of attorney's fees.

Contract DisputeQuantum MeruitBreach of WarrantySworn AccountAttorney's FeesJury VerdictOffset DamagesConstruction LawPleading DefectsAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bashara v. Baptist Memorial Hospital System

This case involves a quantum meruit claim by attorney Sam C. Bashara for fees from a hospital lien held by Baptist Memorial Hospital System. Kelley F. Axtell, Bashara's client, was injured in an automobile accident, leading to a settlement with Texas Farmers Insurance Company. Bashara sought a portion of the settlement proceeds allocated to Baptist Hospital's lien. The trial court initially awarded Bashara quantum meruit recovery, but the court of appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals, holding that a plaintiff’s attorney cannot enforce a quantum meruit claim against a health care provider to reduce the amount recoverable by a hospital lien. The Court rejected arguments based on quantum meruit, the common fund doctrine, and an analogy to workers' compensation statutes, emphasizing the statutory intent to ensure full payment of hospital liens.

Hospital LienQuantum MeruitAttorney FeesCommon Fund DoctrineStatutory InterpretationTexas Property CodeCivil ProcedureDebtor-CreditorSettlement ProceedsMedical Services
References
18
Case No. 04-20-00051-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2021

Medfinmanager, LLC v. John Salas

John Salas was injured on the job and sued the employer of another driver. While his case was pending, MedFinManager, LLC (MedFin) paid medical providers for Salas's spinal fusion surgery. After Salas settled, MedFin sued him for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel to recover its medical payments from the settlement proceeds. The trial court dismissed MedFin's breach of contract and quantum meruit claims, but awarded MedFin $69,393.10 on its promissory estoppel claim, denying all other relief and litigation costs. On appeal, MedFin challenged the dismissal of its contract and quantum meruit claims and the denial of attorney's fees for the promissory estoppel claim, while Salas cross-appealed the denial of litigation costs. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on MedFin's breach of contract and quantum meruit claims, and Salas's litigation costs, but reversed and remanded for a determination of MedFin’s attorney’s fees related to its promissory estoppel claim.

Contract LawQuantum MeruitPromissory EstoppelAttorney's FeesLitigation CostsSettlement OffersTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ProcedureMedical Liens
References
37
Case No. 06-24-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Jennifer Cambas and Lawrence Cambas v. Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC

Jennifer and Lawrence Cambas (Appellants) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Trinity Roofing & Restoration, LLC (Appellee) from the 57th District Court, Bexar County, Texas. The Cambases had hired Trinity for water damage repairs and later requested voluntary upgrades and a roof repair. Disputes arose regarding the completion timeframe and quality of work, leading to the Cambases stopping payments and Trinity suing for breach of contract and quantum meruit. The Cambases counterclaimed for various contract and fraud-related issues. The jury found that the Cambases materially breached the written contract first, Trinity substantially performed, and awarded Trinity damages for breach of contract and quantum meruit for the oral agreement. On appeal, the Cambases challenged the sufficiency of evidence for breach, Trinity's right to recovery, quantum meruit recovery, and attorney fees. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings, Trinity's right to recovery was not barred, quantum meruit recovery was not barred, and Trinity was entitled to attorney fees.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitSubstantial PerformanceMaterial BreachAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewTexas LawConstruction ContractHome Renovation
References
35
Case No. 03-00-00559-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2002

Rainbow Group, Ltd. and Alan Sager/Josephine Johnson Joanne Barker Elizabeth Gonzalez Ramiro Estrada Cheryl Hiltner Emily Hebert Ava Lott Jennifer Washington Amy Spilecke Seantel Cockle Tammy Peterson Lisa Small And Julie Vargas v. Josephine Johnson Jennifer Washington And Seantel Cockle/Rainbow Group, Ltd. and Alan Sager

The Texas Court of Appeals heard an appeal by Supercuts (Rainbow Group, Ltd. and Alan Sager) against a district court judgment favoring hairstylists on a quantum meruit claim for unpaid wages. Supercuts challenged the quantum meruit finding, damages, statute of limitations, and attorney's fees. The hairstylists cross-appealed, seeking additional post-judgment interest and arguing breach of contract. The appellate court affirmed the quantum meruit judgment and damages, reformed the judgment to include post-judgment interest from May 22, 2000, but reversed and remanded the attorney's fees award for reconsideration due to the trial court's failure to segregate fees for interrelated claims. The hairstylists' breach of contract claim was not sustained.

Quantum MeruitUnpaid WagesFair Labor Standards ActStatute of LimitationsDamages CalculationAttorney's Fees SegregationPost-Judgment InterestBreach of ContractClass Action CertificationEquitable Recovery
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez Co. v. Housing Authority of City of Houston

The Ramirez Company, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the Housing Authority of the City of Houston, concerning claims for breach of contract and quantum meruit related to work on two housing projects: Westbury and Emnora. The appellate court reversed and remanded the claims for the Westbury Site, concluding that material fact issues existed regarding Ramirez's entitlement to a Contract of Sale and potential quantum meruit recovery, stemming from an alleged wrongful termination. Conversely, the court affirmed the summary judgment for the Emnora Site. This was because Ramirez Company had forfeited its development opportunity before executing a Contract of Sale, thereby explicitly assuming the risk of non-compensation, and no implied obligation under quantum meruit could supersede this express undertaking.

Contract disputeQuantum meruitSummary judgment appealHousing developmentTurnkey contractConditions precedentBreach of contractTexas civil procedureReal estate lawAppellate review
References
27
Case No. M2018-02183-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2020

Jose Sifuentes, D/B/A Jose's Electric v. D.E.C., LLC

A subcontractor, Jose Sifuentes, sued general contractor D.E.C., LLC, for unpaid work on a bowling alley project. The trial court initially dismissed all claims, including breach of contract and quantum meruit, due to Sifuentes being an unlicensed contractor, citing Tennessee Code Annotated § 62-6-103(b). On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and promissory fraud claims. However, it reversed the dismissal of the quantum meruit claim, clarifying that Tennessee law limits an unlicensed contractor's recovery to actual documented expenses but does not abolish the common law remedy itself when dealing with another professional. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the quantum meruit claim.

Subcontractor disputecontract lawquantum meruitpromissory fraudstatutory interpretationcontractor licensingTennessee appealssummary judgmentdamages limitationcivil procedure
References
29
Case No. 05-18-01383-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2020

PMC Chase, LLP and Steve Turnbow v. Branch Structural Solutions, Inc.

Construction contractor Branch Structural Solutions, Inc. (BSS) sued PMC Chase, LLP and its manager, Steve Turnbow, seeking payment for work performed. The trial court found Mr. Turnbow personally liable for breach of contract and PMC Chase liable in quantum meruit, awarding BSS $32,627.10 in damages and $23,860.00 in attorney's fees. Appellants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding damages and argued errors in finding personal liability and not limiting BSS to quantum meruit recovery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court properly applied the doctrine of substantial performance and that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence for the damages awarded under both breach of contract and quantum meruit theories.

Construction contractBreach of contractQuantum meruitPersonal liabilityCorporate agentAppellate reviewSufficiency of evidenceDamages awardAttorney's feesSubstantial performance
References
24
Case No. E2010-00170-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2010

Dillard Construction, Inc. v. Haron Contracting Corp.

Dillard Construction, Inc. (Dillard) appealed a Chancery Court decision regarding a complex construction dispute with its demolition subcontractor, Havron Contracting Corp. (Havron). The lower court held Dillard liable to Havron for $91,100 under quantum meruit for work performed by Havron's subcontractors, denied Dillard an offset for damaged electrical equipment, and allowed Havron to recover attorney's fees awarded against it to its subcontractor H&S Construction through a 'pass-through' indemnity theory from Dillard. Dillard challenged the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, while Havron challenged the denial of indemnification for its own incurred attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the quantum meruit award and the denial of the offset, finding the evidence did not preponderate against the trial court's findings. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny Havron its own attorney's fees, citing Havron's lack of good faith in denying payment to H&S and its violation of the Prompt Pay Act.

Construction DisputeQuantum MeruitContract LawIndemnityAttorney's FeesSubcontractor ClaimsPrompt Pay ActBreach of ContractEquitable RemediesAppellate Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 99 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