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. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
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. 01-07-01113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2008

Paul Turner v. Precision Surgical, LLC

Paul Turner, a former sales representative for Precision Surgical, L.L.C., appealed a take-nothing judgment stemming from his retaliatory-discharge and Sabine Pilot claims. Turner alleged his termination was a result of his refusal to commit insurance fraud by misrepresenting a work-related injury to claim health insurance instead of workers' compensation, and subsequently for filing a workers' compensation claim. Precision Surgical countered that Turner was terminated due to unreliability and dishonesty. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the disjunctive submission of jury questions because the two claims were mutually exclusive, and even if there were an error, it would have been harmless since the jury considered and rejected both theories of recovery.

Retaliatory DischargeSabine Pilot ClaimWorkers' Compensation ClaimInsurance FraudJury Charge ErrorConditional Jury SubmissionDisjunctive Jury SubmissionMutually Exclusive Legal TheoriesAbuse of DiscretionHarmless Error
References
28
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

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission v. East Side Surgical Center

This case addresses the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center and related entities sued the Commission, seeking to invalidate default rules that applied in the absence of specific fee guidelines, arguing an unlawful delegation of fee-setting authority to insurance carriers. The district court initially declared rule 133.304® invalid, but the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the rule did not constitute an unlawful delegation of the Commission’s authority. The court further clarified that providers are entitled to fair and reasonable reimbursement, not a statutory right to fee guidelines established by rule, and affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee.

Workers' CompensationFee GuidelinesAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationDelegation of AuthorityInsurance CarriersAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive Relief
References
19
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
Showing 1-10 of 562 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