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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boring & Tunneling Co. of America, Inc. v. Salazar

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the defendants (relators) in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. The relators, Boring & Tunneling Company of America, Inc. and Lee Arthur Evans, sought to prevent the discovery of certain documents, claiming they were protected by investigative and attorney-client privileges. The documents included an attorney's letter and file memo, and statements from Lee Arthur Evans and his son, Keith Evans, related to a fatal car accident. The trial court, presided over by Judge Felix Salazar, initially granted a protective order but later rescinded it, ordering the production of the disputed documents. On review, the appellate court determined that the relators failed to prove the applicability of investigative privileges because they did not provide objective evidence that the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation. However, the court found that the attorney-client privilege applied to the attorney's letter to the claims adjuster, but not to the attorney's file memo (due to waiver) or Lee Arthur Evans' statement (due to conflicting evidence regarding the attorney-client relationship at the time). Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted in part, ordering the trial court to rescind its production order only for the attorney's letter to the adjuster, and denied for the other documents.

MandamusDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeInvestigative PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegePrivileged DocumentsAbuse of DiscretionAnticipation of LitigationPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle Accident
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grand Jury Proceedings Special Investigation 1198/82

The Bureau of Community Services, an authorized child care agency, moved to quash a subpoena issued by the District Attorney for confidential records concerning three children believed to be victims of crimes, sought in a Grand Jury investigation. The Bureau argued these records were protected by various privileges, including social worker/client, attorney/client, physician/patient, and Social Services Law § 372. The District Attorney contended that the social worker/client privilege did not apply to child victims under CPLR 4508 (subd 3). The court, citing precedent from *Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings (Doe)*, ruled that evidentiary privileges, though important, should not obstruct legitimate Grand Jury investigations into criminal activity, especially when the Grand Jury operates in secrecy. Consequently, the motion to quash the subpoena was denied in all respects. The court did order the District Attorney to photocopy the subpoenaed materials and return the originals to the agency within five working days.

SubpoenaMotion to QuashConfidentialitySocial Worker-Client PrivilegeAttorney-Client PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeGrand Jury InvestigationChild VictimsSocial Services LawCPLR
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enos v. Baker

This mandamus proceeding stems from a divorce suit between Gregory B. Enos and Susan Enos. Gregory, along with his law firm Burwell & Enos, Inc., sought a writ against a trial court order mandating the production of an inventory of client evaluations and all active client files of the firm to Susan's attorney. The purpose was to assist in valuing the community property. Relators argued the documents were protected by attorney-client and work product privileges, and the discovery order was overbroad. The appellate court found the trial judge abused his discretion, affirming the protection of client files under attorney-client privilege (TEX.R.Ciy.EVID. 503) and evaluations/demands under the work product doctrine (TEX.R.CIY.P. 166b(3)(a)). Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, requiring the trial court to vacate the offending discovery orders.

MandamusDivorceCommunity PropertyDiscovery DisputeAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product PrivilegeLaw Firm ValuationPrivileged DocumentsAbuse of DiscretionConfidential Communications
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Attorney General of State of Tex.

This appeal involves Mike M. Perez challenging a trial court's allocation of a workers' compensation settlement to his child support obligations, and Tony Diaz, Perez's former attorney, appealing the trial court's failure to allocate enough proceeds to his contractual claims. The court found that the Assistant Attorney General, who asserted the child support claim, did not properly intervene in the original hearing by failing to file a petition. Consequently, the appellate court sustained Perez's first point of error and modified the judgment to remove the child support bond. The court also affirmed the trial court's implied finding that both Perez and Diaz assented to the abandonment of their attorney-client contract, thus making an award based on the reasonable value of services proper. Diaz's claim for additional attorney's fees for breach of contract was also denied due to a lack of proof of presentment.

Child Support ArrearageWorkers' Compensation SettlementAttorney's Fees DisputeIntervention ProcedurePleading RequirementsDue Process ViolationWaiver of ErrorQuantum MeruitContract AbandonmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 2020-05-0763
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2021

Philalom, Lynnese v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

This interlocutory appeal addresses a discovery dispute concerning communications between an employer's attorney and a nurse case manager assigned to an employee's claim by a third-party administrator. The trial court ordered the employer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., to provide copies of the nurse case manager's records to the employee, Lynnese Philalom, finding no protection under attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. The employer appealed this order. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the "common interest doctrine" was inapplicable as neither the third-party administrator nor the nurse case manager was a party to the action. Furthermore, the Board found that the nurse case manager was not the functional equivalent of an employee for attorney-client privilege purposes and any work product privilege was waived by communicating with a neutral third party.

Discovery DisputeNurse Case ManagerAttorney-Client PrivilegeWork Product DoctrineCommon Interest DoctrineWorkers' CompensationThird-Party AdministratorMedical Case ManagementAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relations
References
10
Case No. 15-25-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2025

Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General for the State of Texas and the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas v. Delia Garza, in Her Official Capacity as Travis County Attorney; John Creuzot, in His Official Capacity as Dallas County Criminal District Attorney; And Brian Middleton, in His Official Capacity as District Attorney of Fort Bend County (268th Judicial District)

This emergency motion seeks to stay the enforcement of new rules (1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE ch. 56) adopted by the Attorney General, which impose onerous reporting requirements on district and county attorneys in large Texas counties. The trial court had temporarily enjoined these rules, but the Attorney General's appeal automatically superseded the injunction. Appellees argue the rules are invalid due to lack of statutory authority, violation of separation of powers, and improper procedure. They also contend that complying with the rules would cause irreparable harm by diverting significant resources and forcing the disclosure of confidential and privileged information, while the Attorney General would suffer no prejudice from a stay. They seek a temporary order from the Fifteenth Court of Appeals to preserve the status quo pending appeal.

Emergency MotionTemporary ReliefStay of EnforcementAdministrative RulesAttorney General AuthoritySeparation of PowersProsecutorial DiscretionConfidential InformationUnfunded MandateFiscal Impact
References
34
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 12-CV-7527 (JMF)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

This civil fraud case, brought by the United States against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Kurt Lofrano, addresses a novel issue in the Second Circuit: whether an employee can assert an advice-of-counsel defense by disclosing privileged communications when the employer holds the privilege and refuses to waive it. Defendant Kurt Lofrano sought to use advice from Wells Fargo's counsel as a complete defense against claims under the False Claims Act and FIRREA. Wells Fargo, however, moved for a protective order to prevent the disclosure of its attorney-client privileged communications. The Court, citing Supreme Court precedent in Swidler & Berlin, concluded that a balancing test between the importance of evidence and the attorney-client privilege is not applicable in civil cases. Consequently, the Court granted Wells Fargo's motion for a protective order, precluding Lofrano from asserting the advice-of-counsel defense using the Bank's privileged information.

Attorney-Client PrivilegeAdvice of Counsel DefenseCorporate PrivilegeEmployee Privilege WaiverProtective OrderCivil FraudFalse Claims ActFIRREAImplied WaiverEvidentiary Rules
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Argudin

This opinion addresses a legal issue raised during a jury trial where the defendant was accused of third-degree assault and fourth-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The defense demanded that the prosecution produce notes taken by a private attorney's secretary from the complainant, considering them Rosario material for cross-examination. The prosecution argued they neither possessed nor controlled these notes, and the attorney asserted attorney-client privilege. The court ruled that the notes are not Rosario material, citing lack of prosecution possession or control and the statutory attorney-client privilege. Consequently, the prosecution is not obligated to produce the notes for trial.

Rosario MaterialDiscoveryAttorney-Client PrivilegeProsecutorial ControlWitness StatementCriminal ProcedureAssaultWeapon PossessionTrial EvidenceConfidentiality
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 5,425 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