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. 13-00-091-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2000

in Re: Espiridion Guzman

Relator Espiridion Guzman, who was involved in a fatal truck collision, settled a wrongful death and survivor benefits suit with the heirs of the deceased. Subsequently, Haas Anderson and Warning Lites, Inc., co-defendants in the original suit, sought contribution and indemnity from Guzman and his employer, Bicentennial Trucking, Inc., alleging negligent entrustment due to Guzman's incompetence. To support their claims, Haas Anderson requested that Guzman sign authorizations for the release of his drivers history, medical history, employment history, and worker's compensation claims. The trial court ordered Guzman to execute these authorizations, prompting Guzman to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Guzman argued that the court lacked the authority under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to compel him to create documents (the signed authorizations) that did not previously exist. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that Rules 196 and 205 do not authorize a court to order the creation of such authorizations. Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, instructing the trial court to vacate its order compelling Guzman to sign the authorizations.

Writ of MandamusDiscovery DisputeTexas Civil Procedure Rule 196Texas Civil Procedure Rule 205Compelled AuthorizationCreation of DocumentsNegligent EntrustmentMedical Information ReleaseEmployment Information ReleaseWorkers' Compensation Information
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2017

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal concerning a breach of contract suit related to defects in the design and construction of a hotel. Appellant Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc. (Elness), the architectural firm, appealed a judgment in favor of appellees RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC (collectively, RLJ), the hotel owner. RLJ had acquired the contract rights through an assignment from a previous owner and had settled with other defendants, EBCO (general contractor) and Terracon (geotechnical engineering firm). The jury found Elness liable and awarded RLJ $785,000 in damages. The trial court applied settlement credits and attorney's fees, resulting in a net award to RLJ. On appeal, Elness's issues regarding RLJ's capacity to sue, evidence admissibility, jury charge, and damages sufficiency were overruled. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding attorney's fees. It ruled that after applying the one-satisfaction rule and the $1,170,000 in settlement credits from other defendants, RLJ did not actually recover any damages from Elness. Consequently, RLJ was not a "prevailing party" entitled to attorney's fees under Texas law. The court reversed the trial court’s final judgment and rendered a judgment that RLJ take nothing.

Breach of ContractArchitectural NegligenceConstruction DefectsHotel DevelopmentContract AssignmentCapacity to SueSummary JudgmentEvidence AdmissibilityJury ChargeDamages
References
151
Case No. 01-11-00234-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

the City of Houston v. Enrique Guzman

The City of Houston appealed an interlocutory order denying its plea to the jurisdiction against Enrique Guzman's negligence claims. Guzman had initially sued both the City and its employee, Brent Foltz, after a Houston Police Department patrol car driven by Foltz collided with Guzman's vehicle. Guzman's employer, Harris County, also intervened for subrogated interests, seeking to recover benefits and expenses. The City contended that Guzman's claims were barred by section 101.106(b) of the Texas Tort Claims Act because he initially sued both the governmental unit and its employee. The Court of Appeals, citing its own jurisprudence in similar cases, affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea, holding that section 101.106(b) did not bar the suit against the governmental unit under these circumstances.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to JurisdictionTexas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityNegligence ClaimsElection of RemediesSovereign ImmunitySubrogationWorkers' Compensation ProviderPolice Misconduct
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E.V.R. II Associates, Ltd. v. Brundige

Riley T. Brundige, a security service employee, sued E.V.R. II Associates, Ltd., E.V.R. II Partnership, and Enclave Development Corporation (Enclave) for personal injuries sustained from a fall on their premises on April 18, 1987. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company intervened as the workers' compensation carrier for Brundige's employer, seeking subrogation for $47,293.73 in indemnity and medical payments. A jury found in favor of Brundige, awarding him $270,468.43, and Liberty Mutual was awarded $46,500.00 from Brundige's recovery, plus $22,000.00 in attorney's fees. Enclave appealed, raising points regarding the admission of workers' compensation benefits evidence, the denial of a separate trial for Liberty Mutual's subrogation claim, jury challenges, and the admission of post-accident repair photographs. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error.

Premises LiabilityPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation SubrogationEvidentiary RulesSubsequent Remedial MeasuresJury SelectionPeremptory ChallengesAntagonism Between PartiesInterventionAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Bevona

Carlos Guzman, a member and former shop steward of Local 32B-32J, sued the Union's Joint Executive Board for violating his rights under the LMRDA and LMRA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Guzman alleged he was retaliated against for protesting union dues and salaries, specifically by being excluded from a meeting, subjected to surveillance by union-hired private investigators, and having his work hours reduced. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Guzman's claims had sufficient grounds to proceed, including potential damages for breach of union constitution and for extreme and outrageous conduct causing emotional distress.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActFreedom of Speech and AssemblyUnion Dues ProtestShop Steward ExclusionSurveillanceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to DismissUnion Constitution BreachRetaliation
References
19
Case No. NO. 12-02-00052-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2003

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Gustavo Tovar Guzman

Tyson Foods, Inc. appealed a jury's award of over $745,000 to Gustavo Tovar Guzman for injuries sustained when he was struck by a forklift operated by a Tyson employee. Guzman, a chicken catcher employed by a subcontractor, sued Tyson for negligence. On appeal, Tyson challenged the admission of evidence regarding subsequent remedial safety measures and an expert's testimony on lost earning capacity, arguing Guzman's undocumented status should bar such damages. The Twelfth Court of Appeals District in Tyler, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court ruled that evidence of post-accident safety changes was admissible because Tyson contested its control over the work, and that Texas law permits recovery for lost earning capacity regardless of a claimant's immigration status. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of Tyson's negligence as the proximate cause of Guzman's injuries.

negligencepersonal injuryforklift accidentindustrial accidentindependent contractor liabilitypremises liabilitysubsequent remedial measuresevidentiary rulingsexpert testimonylost earning capacity
References
37
Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Significant
Apr 06, 2009

Mario Almaraz vs. Environmental Recovery Services (a.k.a. ENVIROSERVE), State Compensation Insurance Fund Joyce Guzman vs. Milpitas Unified School District, Permissibly Self-Insured, Keenan & Associates, Adjusting Agent

The Appeals Board grants reconsideration in two consolidated cases, Almaraz and Guzman, to study the issues raised in a petition and allows for the filing of amicus curiae briefs by any interested person or entity.

WCABReconsiderationAmicus BriefsEn Banc DecisionAMA GuidesPermanent DisabilityThreshold IssueRebuttalFinal OrderInterlocutory Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hang On II, Inc. v. Tuckey

Shelby Jean Tuckey, a cocktail waitress, sued her employer, Hang-On-II, Inc., for damages after she fell and broke her arm at work, alleging negligence due to inadequate lighting and lack of a guardrail on steps. A jury initially found in Tuckey's favor, awarding $84,500. Hang-On-II, Inc. appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, specifically regarding proximate cause. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Tuckey failed to present sufficient evidence that Hang-On's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of her injury, and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Hang-On-II, Inc.

NegligenceProximate CauseEmployment LawPremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExemptionSufficiency of EvidenceJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate ReversalPersonal InjuryDuty to Insure
References
21
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01944 [226 AD3d 836]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2024

Ragusa v. Drazie's Farm II, LLC

The plaintiff, Matthew Ragusa, appealed an order denying his cross-motion to amend the complaint to add Drazie's Farm, LLC as a defendant and granting summary judgment to Drazie's Farm II, LLC on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the relation-back doctrine did not apply because Drazie's Farm II, LLC and Drazie's Farm, LLC were separate entities with potentially different defenses, thus not united in interest. Furthermore, Drazie's Farm II, LLC established that it did not own the property where the accident occurred and therefore could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)A-frame ladderfall from heightpremises liabilityrelation-back doctrinesummary judgmentlimited liability companyproperty ownershipadjoining properties
References
10
Case No. 01-16-00149-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2017

Amigos Meat Distributors, L.P. v. Julian Guzman and Catherine Michele Montejano

Julian Guzman, a truck driver for Amigos Meat Distributors, was injured while lifting a heavy cow carcass in May 2011. Amigos, a non-workers' compensation subscriber, initially paid his medical bills but later terminated his employment and ceased payments after a surveillance video showed him carrying a laundry basket. Guzman, along with his wife Catherine Montejano, sued Amigos for negligence. The jury found Amigos negligent and awarded Guzman significant damages, including for past medical expenses, pain, and physical impairment. Amigos appealed the damages findings and alleged improper jury arguments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of causation for medical expenses and no incurable error in jury arguments.

Workers' Compensation Non-SubscriberNegligenceCausationMedical ExpensesJury VerdictDamages AppealImproper Jury ArgumentFactoring CompanyPreexisting Condition AggravationAppellate Review
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 490 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