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. 03-14-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Noah S. Bunker, Paul Carrell, Everett Brew Houston, Jr., W. Andrew Buchholz, Scott J. Leighty, Jad L. Davis, and Holly Clause v. Tracy D. Strandhagen

Dr. Tracy D. Strandhagen, an anesthesiologist, was a partner in Austin Anesthesiology Group, LLP, which was sold to American Anesthesiology of Texas, Inc. Physicians, including Strandhagen and the appellants, entered into an Advisory Board and Internal Operations Agreement. This agreement included a 'Termination Penalty Clause' stating that if a physician's employment with AAT terminated early for reasons other than without cause by AAT, they would pay $500,000 in liquidated damages. Strandhagen's employment terminated in July 2013, leading to a dispute over the enforceability of this clause. The trial court granted Strandhagen's motion for summary judgment, declaring the $500,000 liquidated damages clause an unenforceable penalty because it was not a reasonable forecast of just compensation.

Contract DisputeLiquidated DamagesUnenforceable PenaltyEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate LawTexas LawCommercial Contract
References
54
Case No. 13-05-055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Scott Cerre v. Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP

Scott Cerre, an employee of Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP, was injured on the job and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He was later terminated under Odfjell's absence-control policy after taking a six-month leave of absence. Cerre sued Odfjell, alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Odfjell. On appeal, Cerre contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both his discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Odfjell successfully negated elements of the discrimination claim and that Cerre's termination was due to a uniformly enforced absence-control policy, not retaliation.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCausal ConnectionHarassment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Tarpon Cove, Ltd. & Taylor Woodrow Blitman Property Corp. of Florida

Tarpon, a Florida property owner, entered a management and development agreement with Taylor, which included a New York arbitration clause. After Tarpon unilaterally terminated the agreement, a dispute arose over termination and reimbursement costs. Tarpon initiated an action in Florida, prompting Taylor to demand arbitration for both parties' claims. Special Term initially granted Tarpon's motion to stay arbitration, ruling the clause was nullified by termination. The appellate court reversed, holding that a unilateral termination does not extinguish a broad arbitration clause and that issues regarding the agreement's termination and alleged breaches are matters for arbitration. The court also ordered a stay of the related Florida action pending arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementContract TerminationStay of ArbitrationCompelling ArbitrationCross-MotionFlorida LitigationNew York LawUnilateral TerminationBreach of ContractAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Horton

M. C. Horton sued Dallas Railway & Terminal Company to recover damages for personal injuries to his wife, Mrs. Adeline Horton, sustained when her coat was caught while alighting from a street car, causing her to be thrown and dragged. The jury found the defendant negligent and awarded Horton $3,000. The Dallas Railway & Terminal Company appealed the judgment, raising three main issues: alleged double recovery allowed by the jury charge on damages, juror misconduct during deliberations, and alleged coercion of the jury by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury charge, upholding the trial court's discretion regarding juror misconduct, and concluding that the court's instructions to the jury regarding conflicting answers were not coercive.

Personal InjuryStreet Car AccidentNegligenceDamagesJury MisconductCoercionAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionCivil ProcedureLoss of Earning Capacity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. 02-22-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2023

BioTE Medical, LLC v. John Carrozzella, MD, JCMD Medical Services, Inc., Dan Deneui, and Terri Deneui

This case addresses whether a contractual "residual benefit" clause, requiring a post-termination fee for using a competing treatment method, constitutes a covenant not to compete under Texas law. Appellant BioTE Medical, LLC, licensed a pellet-based bioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) method. Appellee JCMD Medical Services, Inc., a former customer, terminated its agreement and began using a competitor's BHRT without paying the residual-benefit fee. BioTE Medical sued JCMD for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment to JCMD, finding the clause unenforceable either as a noncompete or a violation of public policy. The appellate court reversed, holding that the residual-benefit clause is not a covenant not to compete as it does not restrict JCMD from competing with BioTE Medical, but rather from using a competitor's product. The court also declined to invalidate the clause on uncodified public policy grounds, deferring to the Legislature's policy determinations.

Contract lawCovenants Not to Compete ActResidual benefit clausePublic policyBioidentical hormone replacement therapy (BHRT)Breach of contractSummary judgmentAppellate reviewTexas lawBusiness and Commerce Code
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1973

Guerra v. Manchester Terminal Corporation

Guerra, a Mexican National and resident alien, was transferred from his job at Manchester Terminal Corporation's Dock and Commodity Department to the Cotton Compress and Warehouse Department in 1965 due to a discriminatory policy by Local 1581 against Mexican Nationals with families in Mexico. Guerra filed charges with the NLRB and EEOC, and later a civil action in district court in 1971, alleging discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court ruled that filing with the NLRB tolled the statute of limitations. While rejecting the Title VII claim, the court found that 42 U.S.C. § 1981 protects aliens from private discrimination and concluded that the defendants engaged in a discriminatory practice, issuing an injunction and scheduling a damages hearing.

Civil Rights Act of 1964Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Employment DiscriminationAlienage DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsTollingNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1948

Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Orr

Mrs. Orr (plaintiff) sued Dallas Railway & Terminal Company (defendant) for personal injuries sustained in a collision between her automobile and the defendant's motor bus in Dallas on July 25, 1943. She recovered $10,000.00 in a lower court, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, complaining about the trial court's refusal to include a special instruction regarding pre-existing conditions and the refusal to send photographs to the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision, finding that the evidence of prior infirmities was insufficient to warrant the requested special instruction. Additionally, the error in not sending the photographs to the jury was deemed harmless as they were merely cumulative evidence of substantially undisputed facts.

Personal InjuryAutomobile AccidentMotor BusNegligenceDamagesPre-existing ConditionsJury InstructionsProximate CauseAppellate ReviewHarmless Error
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

4200 Avenue K LLC v. Fishman

This case involves a dispute between Employer, 4200 Avenue K, LLC, and Local 32B-32J, SEIU, AFL-CIO, regarding a collective bargaining agreement. The employer moved for summary judgment to permanently stay arbitration, asserting it had properly canceled the agreement and withdrawn union recognition. The union cross-moved to compel arbitration, arguing the cancellation was ineffective due to the employer's failure to negotiate a successor agreement, and that the broad arbitration clause covered disputes over contract interpretation and termination. District Judge Robert L. Carter denied the employer's motion and granted the union's cross-motion, ruling that the arbitrability of the dispute, including the interpretation of the evergreen clause and the agreement's termination, falls within the scope of the arbitration clause. The court also found the motion to compel arbitration to be timely and that deferral to the NLRB was not required as the central issue was contractual interpretation.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEvergreen ClauseContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentLabor DisputesUnion RecognitionFederal CourtsNLRB JurisdictionTimeliness
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cleveland Wrecking Co. v. Iron Workers Local Union 40

Cleveland Wrecking Company, the plaintiff, initiated an action seeking to stay arbitration and obtain a declaratory judgment against Iron Workers Local Union 40 and related entities ("the Union"). The core dispute revolved around whether Cleveland had validly terminated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) in 1991, thereby negating its obligation to arbitrate a subsequent claim for monetary damages from the Union related to a 1994 project. The Union counter-claimed, asserting that both the question of CBA termination and whether the claim constituted a non-arbitrable "jurisdictional dispute" required interpretation of the CBA's broad arbitration clause. The Court, applying the strong federal presumption in favor of arbitrability for broad clauses, determined that interpreting the CBA's termination provisions and the definition of a "jurisdictional dispute" were matters explicitly delegated to the arbitrator. Consequently, the Court denied Cleveland's motion to stay arbitration and granted the Union's cross-motion, compelling arbitration of all outstanding issues.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract TerminationJurisdictional DisputeLabor LawFederal CourtDeclaratory JudgmentStay ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationUnion Rights
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,645 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