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. 09-23-00078-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2024

Nicholas Marteny v. Brent W. Coon and Brent W. Coon, PC D/B/A Brent Coon & Associates

Nicholas Marteny appeals for the second time the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Brent W. Coon and Brent W. Coon, PC d/b/a Brent Coon & Associates (BCA) in a legal malpractice case. Marteny argued the law-of-the-case doctrine applied, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on lack of duty and damages, and abused its discretion by denying his motion to compel and motion for continuance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the law-of-the-case doctrine inapplicable due to an expanded evidentiary record. It further determined that BCA successfully negated the damages element of Marteny's claim, as purely moratorium-related losses were deemed non-compensable by the MDL court and other claims programs.

Legal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentLaw-of-the-CaseDutyDamagesDiscovery DisputeMotion to CompelMotion for ContinuanceAttorney-Client RelationshipDeepwater Horizon
References
38
Case No. 03-04-00225-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2005

Dr. Byron D. Brent v. Benny Daneshjou Daneshjou Resources, Inc. and Daneshjou Daran, Inc.

Dr. Byron Brent appealed a take-nothing summary judgment rendered in favor of Benny Daneshjou, Daneshjou Resources, Inc., and Daneshjou Daran, Inc. Brent sued Daneshjou after discovering extensive mold and water damage to his house, alleging defective 1990 construction and inadequate 1993 and 1995 repairs. Daneshjou moved for summary judgment, asserting claims were time-barred and lacked merit. The district court granted summary judgment, which the appellate court affirmed. The court examined traditional and no-evidence summary judgment grounds, concluding most claims were barred by statutes of repose or limitations, and remaining claims lacked evidence of essential elements like consideration or proximate cause.

Construction defectsMold damageWater leaksStatute of limitationsStatute of reposeFraudulent concealmentSummary judgmentTexas appellate courtReal propertyNegligence
References
32
Case No. 01-02-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2003

Miller, Brent M. v. Stolthaven Houston, Inc.

Brent M. Miller sued Stolthaven Houston, Inc., alleging age discrimination, unlawful retaliation under Title VII and the Texas Labor Code, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and unlawful retaliation under Texas Labor Code section 451.001. After removal to federal court, most claims were dismissed, and the section 451.001 retaliatory termination claim was remanded to the state trial court. The trial court granted summary judgment for Stolthaven, prompting Miller's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that while Miller presented circumstantial evidence for a prima facie case of retaliatory termination, Stolthaven offered a legitimate non-discriminatory reason (violating company policy by "milking" the clock). The court also noted Miller's own testimony suggested the alleged discrimination stemmed from a personal dispute with his manager, unrelated to his worker's compensation claim.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory TerminationSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationTexas Labor CodeCausal LinkBurden-ShiftingPretextDisparate TreatmentPolicy Violation
References
11
Case No. 15-25-00076-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Marriage of Terry Brent Williams and Tracy Leann Williams and in the Interest of P.R.W., a Child v. the State of Texas

Appellant Terry Brent Williams appeals the Final Decree of Divorce, challenging several orders made by the trial court. He argues that the child support order, requiring payments exceeding his net income, was an abuse of discretion and deviated from statutory guidelines without proper findings. Appellant also contends that the trial court erred by undervaluing and divesting him of his separate property, specifically 10.8 acres of land and welding equipment. Additionally, he asserts that the court improperly awarded 100% of certain personal property value and attorney's fees to the Appellee as a punitive measure, arguing these actions were arbitrary and unsupported by evidence.

DivorceChild SupportProperty DivisionSeparate PropertyAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewAttorney FeesAsset ValuationMarital EstateTexas Family Code
References
41
Case No. ADJ6893236, ADJ6897165
Regular
Aug 16, 2013

ANTONIO DAVILA vs. ALUMISTAR INC./PACIFIC COAST, REDWOOD FIRE CASUALTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it lacked a proof of service, a mandatory filing requirement. Although the lien claimant argued an order was improperly served by the defendant, the Board found no prejudice as the petition was timely filed. The Board would have also denied the petition on its merits due to insufficient evidence of a required lien activation fee payment for Brent Pratley Downey. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationProof of ServiceWCAB Rule 10850Lien ClaimantFinal OrderRule 10500(b)Rule 10500(a)Substantial PrejudiceElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Lien Activation Fee
References
7
Case No. 2021-03-1158
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

Saravia, Eduardo David v. Brent Vineyard

Eduardo David Saravia sustained a right ankle injury after falling from scaffolding. His claim was denied by Brent Vineyard, the employer, on the grounds that Mr. Saravia was an independent contractor, not an employee. The Court had previously denied benefits after an Expedited Hearing due to insufficient evidence of an employment relationship. Mr. Vineyard filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, presenting evidence that he did not control Mr. Saravia's work, did not retain termination rights, paid a lump sum, did not provide tools, and Mr. Saravia could offer services to others. Applying the factors from Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-102(10)(D)(i), the Court found all factors favored Mr. Saravia being an independent contractor. Therefore, the Court granted Brent Vineyard’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Mr. Saravia’s claim with prejudice.

Independent ContractorEmployment RelationshipSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ClaimAnkle InjuryScaffolding FallDenial of BenefitsEmployer LiabilityProcedural HistoryLegal Analysis
References
2
Case No. ADJ15875592; ADJ16732971
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

JAIME LLAMAS vs. CITY OF ANAHEIM, CITY OF DOWNEY

Applicant Jaime Llamas, a police officer, sustained a cumulative brain injury (cancer) while employed by the City of Downey and the City of Anaheim. The WCJ found both employers jointly and severally liable. Defendant City of Downey sought reconsideration, challenging the last injurious exposure and their liability for temporary disability. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the original Findings and Award, and substituted new findings. The Board confirmed the cumulative injury, clarified employment periods, affirmed the industrial presumption for both employers, established a specific liability period (December 21, 2016, through December 21, 2017) based on medical evidence of latency, and deferred issues of contribution between the employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of AnaheimCity of DowneyLabor Code section 4850Labor Code section 3212.1Labor Code section 5500.5last injurious exposurecumulative injurypolice officerbrain cancer
References
40
Case No. E2015-00346-SC-R3-WC
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2016

Douglas Brent Walker v. G.UB.MK Constructors

An employee who sustained spinal, pelvic, and shoulder injuries in 2003 was found permanently and totally disabled in 2007. In 2013, he filed a motion to compel medical benefits, alleging his employer refused to pay for reasonable and necessary treatment recommended by his authorized treating physician, Dr. Workman. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that the employer, through utilization review and an affidavit from Dr. Hazlewood, successfully rebutted the presumption of medical necessity. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against its decision regarding the medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsPermanent Total DisabilityUtilization ReviewMedical NecessitySpinal InjuryPain ManagementTrigger Point InjectionsPercutaneous Neuromodulation TherapyAquatic Therapy
References
14
Case No. ADJ9876999, ADJ9876980
Regular
Jul 20, 2016

ROLANDO RENTERIA vs. CITY OF DOWNEY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Downey's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the finding that police officer Rolando Renteria sustained a compensable injury to his right thumb while weightlifting at home. This was because the WCJ found the off-duty exercise to be a reasonable expectancy of employment, citing Renteria's role as a breacher on the entry team and participation in strength-based training and fitness tests. The Board deferred to the WCJ's credibility findings regarding Renteria's belief that his employer expected such fitness maintenance.

Rolando RenteriaCity of DowneyADJ9876999ADJ9876980Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAOE/COEright thumb injuryoff-duty weightliftingLabor Code section 3600(a)(9)
References
2
Case No. 2017-03-0418
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2017

Allsup, Brent v. Lenoir City Utilities Board

Mr. Brent A. Allsup, a lead lineman, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking additional medical benefits for a right elbow injury sustained on March 17, 2017, while working for Lenoir City Utilities Board. The injury was an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The employer, Lenoir City Utilities Board, denied the claim based on Dr. Sanabria's medical opinion. However, the Court, after reviewing conflicting expert testimonies, prioritized the opinion of orthopedic surgeon Dr. Douglas Calhoun, who confirmed the work-related aggravation. The Court concluded that Mr. Allsup is likely to prevail on the merits and granted his request for additional medical benefits. The employer was ordered to provide treatment, either by designating Dr. Calhoun as the authorized physician or by offering a panel of orthopedic physicians.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsPre-existing ConditionAggravation of InjuryCausationOrthopedic SurgeryElbow InjuryTennessee LawExpert Medical Opinion
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 50 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