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. 2-03-152-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Jacqueline C. Head, Individually and as Successor Trustee Under the FTW Living Trust v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc. F/K/A Affordable Inspections, Inc. and John Fox

Jacqueline Head appealed a summary judgment in favor of U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc. and John Fox. Head argued that her DTPA claims were wrongly barred by a professional services exemption, and a limitation of liability clause should not apply to her breach of contract and negligence claims. The Court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Head's DTPA claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and unconscionability, along with her negligence and breach of contract claims. However, the Court reversed the summary judgment concerning Head's claim for breach of express warranty under the DTPA and the award of attorneys' fees, remanding these specific issues to the trial court for further proceedings.

Real Estate InspectionSummary JudgmentDeceptive Trade Practices ActProfessional Services ExemptionLimitation of LiabilityBreach of ContractNegligenceExpress WarrantyUnconscionabilityAttorneys' Fees
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Head v. U.S. Inspect DFW, Inc.

Jacqueline Head contracted with Affordable Inspections for a home inspection. She alleged that an unsupervised apprentice performed the inspection, failing to disclose significant water damage and structural defects. Head sued Affordable and John Fox (the inspector) under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, unconscionability, and breach of express warranty, as well as for breach of contract and negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for Affordable and Fox, applying the professional services exemption to DTPA claims and limiting liability for contract and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on DTPA claims for misrepresentation, failure to disclose, and unconscionability, and upheld the limitation of liability for breach of contract and negligence. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Head's DTPA claim for breach of express warranty, finding a fact issue regarding the promise of a licensed inspector performing the inspection. Consequently, the award of attorneys' fees to Affordable and Fox was also reversed and remanded.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActProfessional Services ExemptionBreach of ContractNegligenceLimitation of LiabilityExpress WarrantySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Estate InspectionHome Inspector
References
50
Case No. 13-09-00128-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

Petroleum Solutions, Inc. v. Bill Head D/B/A Bill Head Enterprises and Titeflex Corporation

The case involves an appeal by Petroleum Solutions, Inc. (PSI) against Bill Head d/b/a Bill Head Enterprises (Head) and Titeflex, Inc., regarding a jury verdict stemming from a significant diesel fuel leak at Head's truck stop. PSI challenged trial court sanctions for spoliation of evidence, and findings related to Head's claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, as well as Titeflex's indemnification claims. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Head and Titeflex, finding sufficient evidence for PSI's breach of duties and product liability. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment interest.

Diesel leakUnderground storage tankEnvironmental regulationsSpoliation of evidenceFiduciary dutyBreach of contractFraudIndemnificationProduct liabilityAttorney's fees
References
153
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05983
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2018

Matter of Taylor v. Little Angels Head Start

Claimant, Laverne Taylor, sought workers' compensation benefits for a bilateral knee condition, alleging it was work-related due to changes in her job duties at Little Angels Head Start. She filed her claim over a year after leaving employment, and the employer controverted it due to lack of timely notice under Workers' Compensation Law § 18. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed the decision, denying the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer lacked actual knowledge of a work-related injury and was prejudiced by the delay, as Taylor did not inform them of the work-related nature of her condition until much later.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimely NoticeWorkers' Compensation Law § 18Causally-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceBilateral Knee ConditionMedical Leave
References
3
Case No. CV 93-1443 ADS
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2000

LI HEAD START CHILD DEVELOPMENT SERV. v. Kearse

This case addresses cross-motions for reconsideration regarding a prior court order compelling defendants to return $497,736 to L.I. Head Start. The defendants' motion, citing concerns about the financial stability of the Community Action Agencies Insurance Group (CAAIG) Fund if the transfer occurred, was denied, as the court found their evidence outdated and irrelevant to the appropriate assessment date of withdrawal in 1992. Conversely, the plaintiffs' motion for prejudgment interest on the owed sum was granted, with the court ordering the defendants to pay the principal amount plus interest accrued from September 1, 1992. Additionally, the court awarded attorneys' fees to the plaintiffs, finding evidence of bad faith on the part of the defendants and noting the deterrent effect such an award would have on other fund trustees. However, the plaintiffs' request for computer legal research costs was denied as not being a separately taxable expense.

ERISAPension PlanHealth Benefit FundMotion for ReconsiderationPrejudgment InterestAttorneys' FeesFund DepletionFinancial StabilityBad FaithFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moglia v. Sullivan County Head Start, Inc.

This memorandum decision addresses the defendants' motion for summary judgment concerning whether Sullivan County Head Start, Inc. acted "under color of law" in discharging the plaintiff, a key issue for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court referenced prior decisions, specifically Morse v. North Coast Opportunities, Inc. and Nail v. Community Action Agency of Calhoun County, which established that despite extensive federal funding and regulation, Head Start personnel decisions are not made under color of law. This is because federal and state officials lack sufficient control over personnel actions, and Head Start programs do not perform traditionally exclusive governmental functions. Consequently, the court found that Sullivan County Head Start is not a governmental entity for constitutional litigation purposes, granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the plaintiff's pendant State law claims without prejudice.

Summary JudgmentColor of Law42 U.S.C. § 1983Head Start ProgramGovernmental EntityPersonnel DecisionsState ActionFederal FundingDismissal Without PrejudiceBivens Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maryland Insurance Co. v. Head Industrial Coatings & Services, Inc.

This is an appeal in a bad faith insurance case involving Head Industrial Coatings and Services, Inc. (Head) and Maryland Insurance Company (Maryland). Head sued Maryland for denying a contractual liability claim, which was missing from its policy due to an agent's clerical error. The appellate court upheld the cause of action for bad faith, ruling that the agent's knowledge was imputable to Maryland, making the conduct knowingly wrongful. However, the court reduced Head's damage award to policy limits and reversed a statutory penalty. The case also involves a third-party action by Maryland against Gans & Smith Insurance Agency, which was remanded for a new trial due to issues with the jury's finding on breach of fiduciary duty.

Bad Faith InsuranceInsurance Code ViolationsContractual LiabilityAgent ErrorClerical ErrorIndemnity AgreementUnfair Claims Settlement PracticesDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingImputed KnowledgeDamages Calculation
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. v. Kearse

L.I. Head Start Child Development Services, Inc. and two class representatives filed an action against the individual trustees of the Community Action Agencies Insurance Group Fund (CAAIG Trust), alleging breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants unlawfully refused to transfer Head Start's share of accumulated reserves, totaling $499,736, after Head Start withdrew from the CAAIG Trust in 1992. The court found that the CAAIG Trust segregated contributions by employer and that two purported amendments to the trust agreement, which would have prevented the transfer, were invalid. Citing ERISA Sections 1103(c)(1) and 1104(a)(1)(A) and relevant Second Circuit precedents, the court ruled that the defendants must transfer the reserve funds to a new trust for the benefit of Head Start's employees.

ERISAFiduciary DutyEmployee Benefits PlanHealth and Welfare FundTrust AgreementFund ReservesWithdrawal from FundTransfer of AssetsClass ActionBreach of Fiduciary Duty
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Headly

Plaintiff Carter Howard, an inmate, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 against prison officials Headly, Crum, and Fiegl-Bock, alleging violations of his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Howard claimed he was forced to perform strenuous work beyond his physical capabilities despite medical restrictions and repeated complaints, leading to further injuries. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and on qualified immunity grounds. The Court denied the motion, finding that Howard sufficiently alleged an Eighth Amendment claim based on deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition and that the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage.

Civil RightsInmate RightsEighth AmendmentCruel and Unusual PunishmentDeliberate IndifferencePrison ConditionsMedical RestrictionsQualified ImmunityMotion to DismissPleading Standards
References
51
Case No. M2012-00417-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2012

C. H. Guenther & Son, Inc. v. Sue Ann Head

An employee, Ernest Boling, appealed a trial court's decision to void a final administrative order by the Department of Labor (DOL) that had awarded him attorney fees for actions to enforce a workers' compensation settlement. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee determined that the applicable request for assistance process under the DOL does not constitute a contested case as defined by the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA). Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the DOL's order. The decision of the trial court was reversed, and the final DOL administrative order, including the award of attorney fees, was reinstated.

Workers' CompensationAttorney FeesAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionUniform Administrative Procedures ActSettlement EnforcementMedical BenefitsDue ProcessWorkers' Compensation Specialist
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 492 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