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. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meinelt v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.

Jason Meinelt sued his former employer, P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and FMLA after he was fired three days after disclosing a brain tumor. P.F. Chang's moved for summary judgment, claiming Meinelt was fired for improperly adjusting employee hours, and also moved to exclude Meinelt's economic damages expert. The court denied both motions. It found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Meinelt's brain tumor constituted a disability under the ADAAA, whether he violated company policy, and whether he provided sufficient notice for FMLA leave. The court also determined that the expert's front-pay testimony, though speculative, was admissible, as its challenges went to weight rather than admissibility.

Disability DiscriminationFMLAADASummary JudgmentMotion to ExcludeEconomic DamagesFront PayBrain TumorEmployment TerminationManager Misconduct
References
58
Case No. 05-17-01457-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Charles Chang, M.D. v. Ashley Denny

Dr. Charles Chang performed brain surgery on Ashley Denny in 2006, leaving a cotton ball in her brain, which was discovered during a second surgery in 2011. Denny filed a medical liability claim against Dr. Chang in 2013, approximately seven years after the initial surgery and more than two years after discovering the foreign object. The trial court initially dismissed the claims as time-barred but later granted a new trial, where a jury found Dr. Chang negligent and Denny diligent in pursuing her claim. Dr. Chang appealed, challenging the denial of his motion for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto (JNOV) on Denny's open courts defense. The dissenting opinion argues that Denny failed to exercise due diligence as a matter of law, given the 25-month delay in filing suit after discovery, and that her explanations (difficulty helping her lawyer and finding an expert) are insufficient to overcome the statute of limitations. The dissent concludes that the law should be applied neutrally, preventing recovery against Dr. Chang and suggesting Denny's recourse should be against her attorney.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsOpen Courts DoctrineDue DiligenceForeign ObjectSurgical ErrorJury VerdictJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice
References
15
Case No. 01-07-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

in Re Bison Building Materials, Ltd.

Bison Building Materials, Ltd., a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, established an employee injury plan with an arbitration clause. Employee Tracy Sambrano was injured, received benefits, but then sued Bison for negligence, despite signing a post-injury waiver. The trial court denied Bison's motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the court held that Sambrano had accepted the arbitration terms by continued employment and that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws that would prevent enforcement. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to compel arbitration, finding Bison had not waived its right, and dismissed Sambrano's interlocutory appeal.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas General Arbitration Act (TGAA)Workers' Compensation NonsubscriberEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanERISA PreemptionMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealWaiver of ArbitrationContract Defenses
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

Plaintiff, a subcontractor for Massa Construction, Inc., initiated an action against defendant surety to secure payment on a labor and materials bond after Massa ceased payments due to alleged breaches by plaintiff. Defendant denied plaintiff's claim, asserting plaintiff materially breached its subcontract by failing to make pension contributions, provide releases, and obtain a separate payment bond. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of compliance and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a material breach. The court noted that alleged non-payments to suppliers only affected the subcontract price, not Massa's obligation to continue performance, and found no requirement for plaintiff to pay pension contributions to the Iron Workers District Council or obtain a separate payment bond from glaziers unions.

SubcontractorSurety BondPublic Improvement ProjectLabor and Materials BondPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractPension ContributionsPayment ObligationsGlaziers Unions
References
17
Case No. E2013-01734-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2014

Joshua Wayne Taylor v. Mary Katherine Taylor

This is a post-divorce case concerning the modification of a permanent parenting plan and other relief for the parties' daughter. Mother initially sought to modify the residential parenting schedule, and Father counterclaimed for a modified schedule and a change in custody designation. The trial court found no material change in circumstances to warrant a change in the primary residential parent but found a material change supporting a modification of the residential schedule, significantly increasing Mother's parenting time. Father appealed this decision, raising issues regarding the material change in circumstances, failure to designate him as the primary residential parent, and failure to find Mother in contempt. Mother raised issues concerning deviations from child support guidelines and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the denial of a custody change, the modification of the parenting schedule, or the handling of contempt and child support issues.

DivorceChild CustodyParenting Plan ModificationResidential ScheduleMaterial Change in CircumstancesChild Support GuidelinesContempt of CourtAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kesterson v. Varner

Bruce Varner (Father) appealed the trial court's dismissal of his Petition to Modify Custody of his son, J.V. The original custody was awarded to Judy Kesterson (Mother) in a 1990 divorce. Varner sought modification in 2002, citing J.V.'s serious mental health issues, including ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder, as a material change in circumstances. The trial court dismissed the petition, finding Varner failed to prove a material change in circumstances or that a custody change was in the child's best interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that while a material change in circumstances was established due to J.V.'s mental health, Varner did not meet the burden of proof that changing custody to him would be in J.V.'s best interest, especially given expert testimony on J.V.'s manipulative behavior and the guardian ad litem's recommendation for J.V. to remain with the mother. The court also affirmed the allocation of attorney's fees and guardian ad litem fees to Varner.

Custody ModificationChild Mental HealthParental DiscretionBest Interest of ChildGuardian Ad Litem FeesAttorney Fees AwardAppellate ReviewTrial Court DismissalPsychiatric DiagnosisAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
References
29
Case No. 08-10-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

State v. Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC

The State of Texas sued Cemex Construction Materials South, L.L.C. for conversion, breach of contract, and trespass to try title, asserting ownership of valuable building materials on four parcels of public school lands in El Paso County. The State claimed these mineral rights were reserved under the 1895 Land Sales and Mining Acts during original sales in 1900, 1906, and 1912. The trial court denied the State's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Cemex's motion. On appeal, the court reviewed the rulings de novo and found that the State unequivocally reserved mineral rights. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, granted the State's motion for partial summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mineral RightsPublic School LandsSummary JudgmentState of TexasConversion ClaimBreach of ContractMining Act of 1895Land Sales Act of 1895Real Property LawStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. 04-15-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2015

Rhino Contractors, LLC v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LP

Rhino Contractors, LLC, appeals a trial court's default judgment in favor of Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. Vulcan sued Rhino for breach of contract or on a sworn account, alleging Rhino failed to pay $454,846.76 for materials supplied for its construction business, plus 18% interest and attorney's fees. The default judgment included these amounts along with prejudgment interest and court costs. Rhino argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for new trial because it never received proper notice of the lawsuit, thus failing to file an answer. Rhino also asserts it has a meritorious defense, including claims of double billing and improper credits on invoices from Vulcan, and that granting a new trial would not prejudice Vulcan. Furthermore, Rhino contends the damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees awarded were unliquidated and not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence, as Vulcan's affidavit lacked an itemized account and its attorney's fee affidavit did not meet required evidentiary standards.

Default JudgmentBreach of ContractSworn AccountMotion for New TrialService of ProcessCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseDamagesPrejudgment InterestAttorney's Fees
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. JTM Materials, Inc.

This case addresses motor carrier liability, specifically whether a licensed motor carrier leasing equipment is vicariously liable for the negligence of the equipment driver under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). Plaintiff Grant Morris was injured in an accident involving a tractor-trailer driven by an intoxicated Jerry Lee Largent. Morris sued JTM Materials, Inc. and DCV, Inc. (JTM), alleging vicarious liability, respondeat superior, direct liability for negligence, joint enterprise, and joint venture. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to JTM on several claims. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in part, ruling that an interstate motor carrier is vicariously liable under FMCSR for a driver's negligence and finding material fact issues regarding negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and entrustment claims. Conversely, the court affirmed the summary judgment for JTM on Morris's claims related to respondeat superior, civil conspiracy, joint venture, and joint enterprise, ultimately affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Motor Carrier LiabilityVicarious LiabilityNegligent HiringNegligent EntrustmentRespondeat SuperiorFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsEquipment Lease AgreementStatutory EmployeeSummary Judgment ReviewProximate Cause
References
95
Showing 1-10 of 5,976 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