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. 348-363561-25
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2025

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The City of Arlington and City of Fort Worth initiated a lawsuit against several Housing Finance Corporations (HFCs) and Joe Don Bobbitt, the Chief Appraiser of the Tarrant Appraisal District. The cities allege that these HFCs are unlawfully removing properties in Tarrant County from tax appraisal rolls, resulting in significant loss of tax revenue. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the Texas Housing Finance Corporation Act, with cities arguing that HFCs are operating outside their geographical jurisdictions and for non-low-income housing purposes. The HFCs filed pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to transfer venue. The court denied Pecos HFC's plea to the jurisdiction and granted the temporary injunctions sought by both cities, prohibiting HFCs from further acquisitions or tax exemption requests in Arlington and Fort Worth, and preventing the Chief Appraiser from granting such exemptions. The HFCs are now appealing these interlocutory orders.

Housing Finance Corporation ActTax Exemption DisputeProperty Tax LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentTemporary InjunctionGovernmental ImmunityVenue DisputeAdministrative RemediesLocal Government LawTarrant County
References
0
Case No. 01-15-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

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

Relators (TMX Finance entities) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to prevent the deposition of Otto Bielss. LoanStar argues that Bielss has unique and superior personal knowledge relevant to the case, specifically concerning illegal marketing tactics involving accessing DMV records to acquire LoanStar's customers. LoanStar asserts Bielss, as the former Senior Vice President of Operations for the Texas market, was aware of these allegations and implemented aggressive growth strategies contributing to the misconduct. The District Court previously denied the Relators' motion, finding Bielss to be a fact witness actively involved in TitleMax's operations. LoanStar requests the Court deny the Relators' Petition and affirm the District Court's decision.

MandamusApex Deposition DoctrineDiscoveryFact WitnessCorporate RepresentativeTexas Civil ProcedureIllegal MarketingDMV RecordsLoanStarTitleMax
References
14
Case No. 03-97-00448-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 1999

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

This appeal examines the validity of an automobile insurance policy provision. The provision allows for the reduction of uninsured motorist (UM) benefits by the amount of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits already paid to the insured. Appellant Jeane Laurence argued that this offset provision was invalid and unenforceable under Texas law and public policy, challenging the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellee State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. The appellate court analyzed relevant Texas Insurance Code statutes and prior case law concerning UM and PIP coverages, particularly regarding the prevention of double recovery. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the offset clause was valid when the insured's actual damages were less than the combined PIP and UM coverages.

Automobile InsuranceUninsured Motorist CoveragePersonal Injury ProtectionPIP OffsetInsurance Policy ValiditySummary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleDouble RecoveryStatutory InterpretationTexas Insurance Law
References
19
Case No. 19-0791, 19-0792
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2021

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

This case from the Supreme Court of Texas consolidates two petitions for writ of mandamus concerning underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance claims. Relators State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Terecina Shahan, and Todd Joseph Dauper sought to overturn trial court denials of their motions for bifurcated trials. The underlying suits, brought by real parties in interest Al Dodds and Alexander Nicastro, alleged only extracontractual violations of the Texas Insurance Code, seeking UIM benefits as damages, but did not include breach-of-contract claims. State Farm argued that an insured must first establish legal entitlement to policy benefits by proving the underinsured motorist's liability and damages in an initial "car crash" trial, even if only statutory claims are pleaded. The Court agreed, holding that such a showing is a prerequisite for recovering on Insurance Code claims when damages are predicated on policy benefits. It found that denying bifurcation was an abuse of discretion, citing the need to preserve judicial resources and prevent prejudice from the admission of settlement offers. The Court conditionally granted the petitions, directing the trial courts to bifurcate the trials.

Underinsured Motorist InsuranceInsurance Code ClaimsBifurcation of TrialsWrit of MandamusExtracontractual ClaimsPolicy BenefitsTexas Civil ProcedureJudicial DiscretionTrial AbatementSettlement Offers
References
34
Case No. 13-99-814-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The appellees, Alicia Lopez, Adan Munoz, Jr., Juan Llanes, Diana Moreno, and Albert Alaniz, sued their automobile insurance carriers, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleging wrongful failure to pay adequate dividends to policyholders despite significant corporate surpluses, breach of contract, and fraud. Appellants, State Farm and Wendy L. Gramm, contested the class certification on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, absence of a viable cause of action (challenging typicality), and antagonistic interests among class members (challenging adequate representation). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's class certification order, ruling that the trial court had jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in finding that the class met the typicality and adequate representation requirements.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealInsurance LawDividendsPolicyholdersJurisdictionTypicalityAdequate RepresentationAbuse of DiscretionTexas Law
References
37
Case No. 13-14-00462-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves an appeal from the 92nd District Court of Cameron County, Texas, regarding the denial of motions for new trial to vacate no-answer and post-answer default judgments entered against Alamo Home Finance, Inc. and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. in favor of Mario and Maria Duran. The Durans had sued Gonzalez for breach of contract, negligence, and DTPA violations related to a loan for property taxes and alleged failure to purchase insurance, later adding Alamo Home Finance as a defendant. Appellants argued for a new trial based on strict non-compliance with rules of service for Alamo and lack of proper notice of trial settings for Gonzalez. Additionally, both appellants contended they met the Craddock test requirements for setting aside a default judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the motions for new trial, finding that Alamo was not served in strict compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Gonzalez did not receive appropriate notice of trial settings, and both parties satisfied the Craddock equitable factors. The court also denied both parties' motions for appellate sanctions. The case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialStrict ComplianceService of ProcessDue ProcessCraddock TestAppellate SanctionsBreach of ContractNegligenceTexas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plasma Fab appealed a summary judgment granted to BankDirect and Scottsdale Insurance, disputing the effectiveness of an insurance policy cancellation. Plasma Fab's general liability policy, financed by BankDirect, was cancelled for non-payment prior to a fire loss. The appellate court found BankDirect failed to strictly comply with statutory notice requirements under its power of attorney and its liability limitation clause was unenforceable, thus reversing summary judgment against BankDirect on breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims. However, the court affirmed summary judgment for Scottsdale, ruling that the insurer was not obligated to verify the premium finance company's statutory compliance for cancellation and the policy was effectively cancelled before the fire, and not reinstated. The case was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

Insurance LawPolicy CancellationPremium FinancePower of AttorneySummary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyDeceptive Trade PracticesNegligent MisrepresentationFair Notice Doctrine
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2013

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

Justice Johnson's dissenting opinion argues that the homeowners lacked standing to challenge the Finance and Credit Union Commissions' interpretations of home equity lending provisions. The dissent contends that the homeowners failed to allege concrete, particularized injury, asserting that a "prospective interest" in home equity loans is insufficient for standing. Justice Johnson criticizes the Court for issuing an advisory opinion and suggests that the case should be remanded to the trial court to allow the homeowners to replead and demonstrate actual or imminent injury and establish subject-matter jurisdiction, rather than ruling on the merits without proper jurisdictional grounds.

StandingJurisdictionAdvisory OpinionsDeclaratory Judgments ActAdministrative Procedures ActHome Equity LoansConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersJusticiabilityPleading Requirements
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Plaintiff William Lynch initiated an action against the United States Automobile Association (USAA) for unpaid overtime wages, citing violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Lynch sought to amend his complaint to include other similarly situated employees who had opted into the collective action and to introduce California state-law claims for nine California-based plaintiffs. USAA opposed the amendment, primarily arguing that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the California claims due to their purported novelty, complexity, potential to predominate over federal claims, or risk of jury confusion. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox evaluated USAA's objections under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and determined that the California state-law claims were not novel or complex, would not substantially predominate, and that jury confusion did not constitute an exceptional circumstance compelling a denial of jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted Lynch's motion for leave to amend the complaint.

FLSAOvertime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawCalifornia Labor LawRule 15(a)Supplemental JurisdictionMotion to Amend ComplaintCollective ActionClass Certification
References
11
Case No. 2016-03-1190
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2017

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

Gwendolyn L. Hughes, an assistant manager for Security Finance, filed for an expedited hearing after injuring her right knee upon returning from a smoke break at work on October 24, 2016. She fell on a rug but testified she did not know what caused her to fall. The central legal issue was whether her knee injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment or was idiopathic. The Court, presided over by Judge Lisa A. Lowe, noted that for an idiopathic injury to be compensable, an employment hazard must cause or exacerbate it. Finding no evidence of an employment hazard causing the fall, the Court denied her claim for medical and temporary disability benefits, concluding she was not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Knee InjuryIdiopathic FallWorkers' CompensationExpedited HearingCausationBurden of ProofScope of EmploymentInjury Benefits DenialAssistant ManagerTennessee Workers' Compensation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 755 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