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. 08-19-00020-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2020

Desiree Boltos v. State

Desiree Boltos was convicted on six counts related to the exploitation and theft of significant sums of money from six elderly individuals through a scheme involving romantic deception, false claims of illness, and purported business investments. The jury found her guilty of aggregated theft of over $300,000, individual theft counts from Paul Wilbur, Douglas Wingo, James Olmstead, and Richard Lima, and exploitation of an elderly person (Paul Wilbur). She received concurrent sentences ranging from 10 to 85 years, along with $10,000 fines. On appeal, Boltos challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for aggregation of offenses and individual theft counts, argued that multiple punishments violated double jeopardy, sought to suppress email evidence obtained via a search warrant, and contested the legality of subpoenas used for third-party bank and casino records. The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction and sentence, rejecting all claims, finding sufficient evidence, no double jeopardy violation, the search warrant properly issued, and upholding the use of subpoenas under existing precedent.

TheftExploitation of ElderlyFraudFinancial CrimesAggregated OffensesSufficiency of EvidenceDouble JeopardySearch WarrantEmail EvidenceSubpoena
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1998

Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Southwest Aggregates, Inc.

This appeal addresses an insurer's (Alliance) duty to defend its insured (Southwest Aggregates) in silicosis lawsuits and the Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association's (Guaranty Association) obligations after another insurer (ECC) became insolvent. Key issues included whether an insurer's defense duty is pro rata for occurrences spanning multiple policy periods, if the right to a defense must be exhausted against solvent insurers before the Guaranty Association's duty triggers, and the availability of attorney's fees. The court affirmed that an insurer owes a complete, not pro rata, defense and that the right to defense must be exhausted against solvent insurers. However, the court reversed the denial of attorney's fees to the Guaranty Association, holding they are recoverable for a subrogated breach of contract claim.

Insurance LawDuty to DefendPro Rata AllocationExhaustion DoctrineImpaired InsurerGuaranty AssociationSubrogation RightsAttorney's FeesSummary Judgment AppealContract Breach
References
42
Case No. 08-70200
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. v. ACM-Texas, LLC (In re ACM-Texas, Inc.)

This case concerns a protracted dispute between Texas Architectural Aggregate, Inc. (TAA) and Applied Chemical Magnesias Corporation (ACM) and ACM-Texas, LLC, over mineral mining rights in Culberson County, Texas. TAA filed various claims including breach of contract, fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass, while ACM counter-claimed for similar issues. The Court deemed the initial 1999 Letter Agreement unenforceable due to a lack of material terms and non-compliance with the statute of frauds. Ultimately, TAA was awarded $7,125,073.08 for ACM's unjust enrichment, conversion, and trespass related to unlawfully mined materials. ACM, in turn, received $75,000 in reliance damages under promissory estoppel for the construction of a mill, with all other claims and counterclaims denied.

Mining DisputeMineral RightsContract DisputeUnjust EnrichmentPromissory EstoppelConversionTrespassBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingLetter Agreement EnforceabilityFraud Claims
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1999

Claim of Mace v. Owl Wire & Cable Co.

The claimant's husband suffered a heart attack in 1971 and died in 1991, with the death causally related to the 1971 injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that a 3% interest rate, applicable to 1971 accidents under Workers’ Compensation Law § 27 (5), should be used to calculate the present value of the death benefits award to be paid into the Aggregate Trust Fund. The workers’ compensation carrier appealed, contending that the 6% rate, in effect at the time of the decedent's death in 1991, should apply. The court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the statutory interest rate for calculating the present value of awards to the Aggregate Trust Fund is tied to the date of the original accident, not the subsequent causally-related death. This interpretation aligns with legislative intent and prior Board decisions.

Workers' CompensationAggregate Trust FundInterest Rate CalculationStatutory InterpretationDeath BenefitsDate of AccidentLegislative IntentPresent ValueInsurance Carrier LiabilityAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 13-18-00030-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2020

Monica Melissa Patterson v. State

Monica Melissa Patterson appealed her convictions for capital murder, aggregate theft, misapplication of fiduciary property, and attempted theft in Hidalgo County, Texas. The case involved the death of Martin Knell, with allegations that Patterson orchestrated his murder for financial gain by manipulating his will and bank accounts. Patterson also faced charges for misapplying funds from Comfort House Services Inc., a non-profit organization where she served as administrator. Key evidence included Mascorro's testimony (witness to murder), phone records placing Patterson and Mario at Martin's residence, and financial records showing Patterson's transfers from Martin's accounts and unauthorized spending of Comfort funds. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, addressing issues regarding sufficiency of evidence, jury charge errors, expert witness testimony, admission of recordings, and double jeopardy.

Capital MurderAggregate TheftMisapplication of Fiduciary PropertyAttempted TheftAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsExpert TestimonyHearsay EvidenceDouble Jeopardy
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibbons v. State

Marion Gibbons, an attorney, appealed his conviction for attempted theft, valued over $10,000, arguing insufficient evidence. The indictment alleged Gibbons attempted to unlawfully appropriate money from James L. Ballard by negotiating a settlement for an invalid worker's compensation claim for Donnie J. Dukes after Dukes' death. Despite engaging in unethical conduct, such as continuing negotiations and withholding information about Dukes' death from Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and allegedly attempting to bribe an adjuster, the court found these actions did not amount to more than mere preparation. Crucially, the Compromise Settlement Agreement was never executed or submitted for approval by the Industrial Accident Board, which was a prerequisite for collecting funds. Therefore, the judgment of conviction was set aside, and Gibbons was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

Attempted TheftCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceWorker's Compensation ClaimLegal EthicsMere Preparation DoctrineIndustrial Accident BoardCompromise Settlement AgreementFraudAttorney Misconduct
References
13
Case No. 04-15-00532-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

Metso Minerals Industries, Inc. v. Maverick Aggregates, Inc.

Metso Minerals Industries, Inc. (Appellant) filed a Motion for Temporary Orders with the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas. Metso is appealing an interlocutory order from August 25, 2015, which denied its application to compel arbitration against Maverick Aggregates, Inc. (Appellee). Metso requests a stay of all trial court proceedings in Maverick County (Cause No. 12-09-27789-MCVAJA) pending the appellate court's final decision on the accelerated interlocutory appeal. Metso argues that a stay is necessary to preserve the cost-saving benefits of arbitration and protect the court's jurisdiction.

AppealsArbitrationInterlocutory AppealStay of ProceedingsContract DisputeWaiverEstoppelTexasAppellate ProcedureJudicial Process
References
6
Case No. 01-11-00972-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2013

Tracy Brown v. Janet Kleerekoper

Tracy Brown sued Janet KleereKoper alleging breach of contract, theft of property, and theft of services under the Texas Theft Liability Act. A jury awarded Brown $20 for theft-of-services and $242 for breach-of-contract but found against him on the theft-of-property claim. As a result, KleereKoper was awarded $7,747.14 in attorney's fees as the prevailing party on the theft-of-property claim. Brown appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of his motions for summary judgment and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the award of attorney's fees to KleereKoper, and the constitutionality of the TTLA's 'loser pay' provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the denials, that KleereKoper was a prevailing party, and that the TTLA's fee provisions are constitutional.

Theft of ServicesBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesPrevailing PartySummary JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictTexas Theft Liability ActConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionOpen Courts Provision
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2010

Flynn v. Managed Care, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by a workers' compensation carrier and employer challenging a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the carrier was entitled to a refund of $64,540.56 from the aggregate trust fund (ATF). The dispute arose when the carrier, directed to deposit funds into the ATF after a decedent's employment-related death, withheld payment during appeals and paid beneficiaries directly. After the award was affirmed, the carrier deposited the required sum with interest and sought a full refund for its prior direct payments. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the carrier's delayed payment justified the interest charge to prevent a windfall and ensure the ATF maintained sufficient funds.

Workers' Compensation BoardAggregate Trust FundWorkers' Compensation CarrierEmployer AppealRefund DisputeInterest CalculationLate PaymentCommutationBeneficiary PaymentsAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murtaugh v. P & D GMC Sales, Inc.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning an award for occupational lung disease. The claimant, an autobody repairer, was found to have a permanent total disability, and the Board held the employer and its insurer fully liable for the benefits. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge ordered the present value of the award to be deposited into the Aggregate Trust Fund, which the Board affirmed. The employer appealed, arguing for a hearing on the award's present value and consideration of the claimant's life expectancy in actuarial computations. However, the Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the employer's arguments lacked merit and citing Workers' Compensation Law § 27 (5) and prior case law.

Occupational Lung DiseasePermanent Total DisabilityAggregate Trust FundActuarial ComputationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLiability ApportionmentLife ExpectancyAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 272 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