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. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Walter Vogel, a 73-year-old security guard, sustained a work-related shoulder and back injury, leading to a trial court finding of 100% permanent and total disability. The trial court declared Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-207(4)(A)(i) unconstitutional for its age-related benefit caps and awarded Vogel lifetime benefits. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, upholding the constitutionality of the statute's age-based distinctions for permanent total disability benefits under the Equal Protection Clause and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, finding them rationally related to the state's interest in tying workers' compensation to Social Security benefits. However, the Court found the statute's disparate treatment of permanent total versus permanent partial disability benefits for workers over sixty to be irrational, modifying the award to 260 weeks of benefits for the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationAge DiscriminationEqual ProtectionConstitutional LawPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilitySocial Security BenefitsWage LossJudicial ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2016

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a case filed by Michael Lagunas. Lagunas, a 60-year-old security officer at DADS' El Paso State Supported Living Center, applied for an Assistant Unit Director position. Although initially selected for the role, the Director, Laura Cazabon-Braley, intervened and prevented his hiring, allegedly due to his age, and later reorganized the department, creating new positions for which Lagunas was not qualified. Lagunas filed charges of discrimination, alleging age discrimination and subsequent retaliation. The appellate court partly sustained DADS' appeal, ruling that certain claims in Lagunas' amended petition were administratively unexhausted and untimely, and thus should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. However, the court overruled DADS' contention that Lagunas failed to establish a prima facie case for the failure to hire/promote claim, and remanded that portion of the case for further proceedings.

Age DiscriminationFailure to PromoteRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Administrative ExhaustionPrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Burden-ShiftingDepartment Restructuring
References
48
Case No. 08-23-00177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2024

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS) terminated Claudia Gomez, alleging she physically assaulted a coworker; Gomez contended the termination was discriminatory based on age, gender, and disability. The trial court denied DADS's plea to the jurisdiction regarding Gomez's discrimination claims. On appeal, the court found Gomez failed to present evidence of a similarly situated comparator, thus not establishing a prima facie case for age, gender, or disability discrimination. Furthermore, Gomez did not demonstrate that DADS's stated reason for termination was a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and dismissed Gomez's claims for lack of jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawTerminationPretextPrima Facie CaseSovereign ImmunityTexas Labor Code
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. 13-14-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The case involves an appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS). Appellee Jose P. Baldonado sued for age discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after being denied a position by HHSC and subsequently terminated by DADS. Appellants argued a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Baldonado failed to establish a prima facie case for both claims and did not exhaust administrative remedies against DADS. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Baldonado raised sufficient fact questions regarding his qualifications, the causal link for retaliation, and the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court highlighted DADS's status as an agency within HHSC and its participation in the administrative complaint process as evidence of proper notice.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionTCHRAPrima Facie CaseAdministrative RemediesSovereign ImmunityInterlocutory AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
25
Case No. 09-16-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2018

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This appeal concerns Sam Rayburn Municipal Power Agency's (SRMPA) lawsuit against its former attorney, Ralph J. Gillis, and his firm, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and fraud related to the 'Nisco Deal' and the 'Cambridge Project' energy initiatives. SRMPA accused Gillis of self-dealing and undisclosed personal financial gains from these projects. The trial court, following a jury verdict, denied SRMPA's claims regarding the Nisco Deal due to the statute of limitations, but awarded damages for Gillis's breach of fiduciary duty concerning the Cambridge Project. SRMPA appealed the denial of equitable relief, the limitations finding, and the quantum of damages, while Gillis, Obain, and the Jasper/VPPA Settlement Trust filed cross-appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment across all contested issues.

Breach of Fiduciary DutyFraudulent ConcealmentEnergy ProjectsAttorney MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsEquitable ReliefDisgorgementConstructive TrustDamagesRespondeat Superior
References
59
Case No. 14-09-01046-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2010

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This is an accelerated interlocutory appeal concerning the denial of a motion to stay litigation and compel arbitration. The appellees, Kotts Capital Holdings, had sought declaratory relief regarding partnership agreements. Appellants argued that the dispute fell within the scope of a valid arbitration agreement, despite a clause limiting awards to 'compensatory damages only.' The appellate court found that this limitation applied only to the type of damages, not the arbitrator's authority to grant declaratory relief. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order, compelling arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementMotion to CompelDeclaratory JudgmentContract InterpretationPartnership DisputeScope of ArbitrationAppellate ProcedureTexas LawRemandInterlocutory Appeal
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

George D. Walker, a former security guard at Columbia University, sued his employer and labor union for various causes of action including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful discharge, age discrimination under New York Human Rights Law, and a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Walker was mandatorily retired in December 1978 at age 65, under the terms of an expired collective bargaining agreement. A new agreement, signed in July 1979, retroactively extended the mandatory retirement age to 70 as of January 1, 1979. Walker claimed he was unaware of this change until late 1987 or early 1988. The defendants, Columbia University and the Union, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Walker's claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The court found that a six-month statute of limitations applied to the hybrid § 301/fair representation claim and that Walker should have reasonably known about the alleged breach in 1978 or 1979, given the union's publicized meetings regarding contract negotiations. The court also denied any basis for tolling the statute of limitations, as there was no evidence of fraudulent concealment and plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions and dismissed the complaint, ruling that all of plaintiff's claims were time-barred.

Age DiscriminationWrongful DischargeBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationFederal Labor LawHybrid § 301 Claim
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2010

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves Vought Aircraft Industries' claim against its marine cargo insurers, Falvey Cargo Underwriting, Ltd., XL London Market, Limited, and Dornoch Limited, for breach of policy and other claims. A horizontal stabilizer manufactured by Vought was damaged during rail shipment, a peril covered by the marine cargo insurance policy. Vought repaired the stabilizer and sought reimbursement for direct repair costs, overhead expenses, and expediting costs for replacement stabilizers. The court largely dismissed Vought's claims for expediting costs and overhead expenses, finding most were not covered by the policy, though it noted ambiguity in certain policy clauses regarding some shipping costs and overhead. All of Vought's extra-contractual claims, including breach of good faith and fair dealing, unfair insurance practices, breach of repair agreement, promissory estoppel, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment, were dismissed. XL London Market, Limited's defense asserting it acted solely as an agent for a disclosed principal was denied, indicating a factual dispute.

Marine Cargo InsuranceInsurance PolicyContract InterpretationBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodePolicy AmbiguityOverhead CostsExpediting Costs
References
73
Showing 1-10 of 5,081 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