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. 2022-03-0563 (State File Nos. 800889-2022, 26980-2022)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2023

Perez, Oscar v. J&J Tovar Construction, LLC

The employee, Oscar L. Romero Perez, suffered significant injuries while working for J&J Tovar Construction, LLC, which was uninsured for workers' compensation. Homestead Construction, Inc., a statutory employer, had a policy with Northstone Insurance Company, but Northstone filed a declaratory judgment action challenging its contract's validity. The trial court ordered J&J Tovar and/or Homestead to provide ongoing medical benefits. J&J Tovar appealed, arguing Northstone should be specifically ordered to pay. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, ruling that Northstone remains liable for benefits under Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Law unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction voids the insurance contract, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory Judgment ActionMedical BenefitsUninsured EmployerInterlocutory AppealAppeals Board DecisionTennessee LawJoint and Several Liability
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06859
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Sariyah L.J. (Antonio J.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order that denied Antonio J.'s motion to vacate a default order which determined him to be a notice-only father. The court found that Antonio J. failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default, having chosen to attend a meeting with his shelter worker without notifying his attorney or the court. Furthermore, he failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, as his affidavit did not establish substantial and continuous contact or financial support for the child, Sariyah L.J., in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]. The appeal from the underlying August 20, 2018 order was dismissed as nonappealable.

Family LawPaternityDefault JudgmentVacaturParental RightsChild CustodyAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessInfant CaseMotion Practice
References
4
Case No. 03-15-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2015

Bob E. Woody v. J. Black's, LP And J. Black's GP, LLC

Bob E. Woody initiated a lawsuit against J. Black's, L.P. and J. Black's, G.P., L.L.C. concerning a commercial sublease, seeking its termination. J. Black's counterclaimed for breach of contract, asserting that Woody had improperly rejected their lease extension and declared them in default. The trial court initially granted multiple partial summary judgments in favor of J. Black's, finding Woody in breach and dismissing all of his claims. On appeal, the Amarillo Court of Appeals affirmed Woody's breach but remanded for a determination of whether J. Black's was ready, willing, and able to perform, a prerequisite for specific performance. Upon remand, the trial court found J. Black's met this condition and awarded specific performance of the sublease and attorney's fees to J. Black's.

Commercial LeaseSublease AgreementBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceAttorney's FeesTexas LawReal Estate DisputeLease ExtensionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
38
Case No. 12-18-00111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2018

in the Interest of J. G. and J. G., Children

R.G. appealed the termination of her parental rights concerning her two children, J.G.1 and J.G.2, challenging the trial court's denial of a continuance and a new trial, and the sufficiency of evidence for termination. The Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination due to allegations of domestic violence and drug use, with R.G. and some children testing positive for methamphetamine. R.G. consistently refused court-ordered drug tests and evaluations, citing distrust of the Department. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion and sufficient evidence to support the termination of parental rights in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareDue ProcessMotion for ContinuanceBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceDrug AbuseDomestic ViolenceChild NeglectFamily Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc.

The Garcias, family of Rosario Michelle Garcia, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc., their employer, following Mrs. Garcia's death during a robbery at her workplace. Mrs. Garcia died after pursuing a shoplifter, contrary to company policy, and was run over by a fleeing vehicle. The Garcias brought a wrongful death suit, alleging employer negligence, while J.J.S. Enterprises asserted unforeseeability, lack of proximate cause, and a pre-injury waiver. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that the pre-injury waiver Mrs. Garcia signed was valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' negligence claims. This decision upheld that such waivers, made before June 17, 2001, are not against public policy under Texas law if the employee had actual knowledge of the waiver's terms.

Wrongful DeathNegligence ClaimSummary JudgmentPre-injury WaiverEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanOccupational AccidentNon-subscriber EmployerPublic PolicyExpress Negligence DoctrineFair Notice Requirements
References
24
Case No. 01-19-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Four J's Community Living Center, Inc. and Anthonia Uduma v. Patti J. Wagner, as Guardian of Jenny Ann Wagner, an Incapacitated Adult

The appellants, Four J's Community Living Center, Inc. and Anthonia Uduma, challenged a trial court's judgment in favor of Patti J. Wagner, as guardian of Jenny Ann Wagner. Jenny, an incapacitated adult, sustained severe burns and smoke inhalation in a fire at a residential care facility operated by Four J's and owned by Uduma. The jury found Four J's and Uduma negligent, awarding significant non-economic damages for past and future pain and disfigurement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding legally sufficient evidence of Uduma's negligence as the premises owner and factually sufficient evidence for the damages awarded. The court also rejected the application of a health care liability damages cap, stating that Four J's did not conclusively prove its status as a licensed health care provider.

NegligencePersonal InjuryResidential Care FacilityFire SafetyDamagesLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyPremises LiabilityHealth Care Liability ClaimTexas Medical Liability Act
References
33
Case No. 08-04-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

Francisco Garcia, Individually and as Next Friend of Francisco Garcia, Jr., and Kevin Garcia, Minor Children v. J. J. S. Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A/ PDQ Drive-In Grocery

Francisco Garcia, individually and as next friend for his minor children, Francisco Garcia, Jr. and Kevin Garcia (the Garcias), appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc. (J.J.S. Enterprises). The case originated from the death of Rosario Michelle Garcia, who died during a robbery at her employer, PDQ Drive-In Grocery. Mrs. Garcia, a cashier, pursued a shoplifter against company policy, fell from a moving vehicle, and was fatally injured. The Garcias filed a wrongful death suit alleging negligence, but J.J.S. Enterprises moved for summary judgment citing a pre-injury waiver. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling the pre-injury waiver valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' lawsuit.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentPre-Injury WaiverOccupational Accident PlanNon-Subscriber EmployerTexas LawPublic PolicyFair NoticeActual Knowledge
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1982

Claim of Fabrizio v. J. R. J. Concrete Corp.

Claimant, a construction foreman, sustained injuries in 1976 while employed by J. R. J. Concrete Corporation and was subsequently awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer and its carrier appealed the award amount, contending that the claimant had intentionally limited his income after the injury to continue receiving Social Security benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board concluded that the claimant did not limit his income. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the board's determination regarding factual questions and credibility, thus affirming the decision.

Workers' CompensationReduced EarningsSocial Security BenefitsAccidental DisabilityCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewConstruction ForemanInjury ClaimBoard Determination
References
4
Case No. 01-0774
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2003

J. M. Davidson, Inc. v. Chelsey J. Webster

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed an interlocutory appeal concerning an employer's motion to compel arbitration. Chelsey J. Webster sued his former employer, J. M. Davidson, Inc., for wrongful termination, alleging retaliation for a workers' compensation claim. Davidson sought to enforce an arbitration agreement, which the trial court and court of appeals deemed illusory. The Supreme Court found the arbitration agreement ambiguous, specifically regarding whether the employer's unilateral right to modify 'personnel policies' extended to the arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to clarify the parties' intent.

Arbitration AgreementAt-will EmploymentContract AmbiguityWrongful TerminationWorkers' CompensationRetaliation ClaimTexas Supreme CourtEmployment LawMutual AssentIllusory Promise
References
36
Case No. 01-06-00509-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2008

Peter J. Yeh v. David J. MacDougall, D.O., P.A. D/B/A Neurosurgical Association of Houston

In this breach of contract lawsuit, Peter J. Yeh appealed a final judgment rendered after a jury verdict in favor of David J. MacDougall, D.O., P.A. d/b/a Neurosurgical Association of Houston (NAH). Yeh contended the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding that NAH did not breach an oral agreement to provide billing and collection services, and that attorney's fees awarded to NAH should be reversed as Yeh was the prevailing party. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas concluded that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's finding that NAH did not breach the agreement. It also found that NAH was the prevailing party as it succeeded on its breach of contract claim, entitling it to attorney's fees despite an offset. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Breach of ContractOral AgreementBilling & Collection ServicesAttorney's FeesPrevailing PartyEvidentiary SufficiencyJury FindingDamages CalculationBusiness DisputeProfessional Services Agreement
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,923 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