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. 13-09-00610-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2011

Humberto A. Rangel v. Nueces County

Humberto A. Rangel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Nueces County and the denial of his cross-motion regarding a workers' compensation dispute. Rangel sustained a lower back injury in 2003 while working as a mechanic's assistant for Nueces County, a self-insured entity. After experiencing subsequent back pain incidents in 2004 and 2006, the DWC ruled the 2006 incident was a new injury, not an exacerbation of the 2003 injury. The appellate court reviewed conflicting medical opinions from Dr. Chodosh and Dr. Puentes, finding a genuine issue of material fact on the causality of Rangel's 2006 pain. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of Rangel's summary judgment, reversed Nueces County's summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentBack InjuryLumbar SpineMedical CausationAgreed Statement of FactsExacerbationHerniated DiscJudicial ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnston Testers v. Rangel

Jose Rangel, an employee of Sam Howell Drilling Company, filed a third-party action against Johnston Testers for injuries sustained during an oil well testing operation. Rangel was struck by a falling pipe section called a 'sub' that became unscrewed. The jury awarded Rangel $74,598.00 for damages, including diminished earning capacity and medical expenses. Johnston Testers appealed, alleging trial court errors regarding special issues on sole proximate cause, evidence sufficiency for defendant's employee negligence, and defenses of borrowed servant and volenti non fit injuria. The appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

oil field injurynegligencethird-party actionworkers' compensationproximate causeborrowed servantvolenti non fit injuriajury instructionsappellate reviewpersonal injury
References
23
Case No. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. 528566
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christine Kelly (Kelly, Kevin (dec'd)

Claimant Christine Kelly filed a claim for death benefits after her husband's death, alleging it was causally-related to his established asbestos-related occupational disease. Liability for the original disability claim had been transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 2011. The employer argued the Special Fund should be liable for the death benefits claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board and the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed that the death benefits claim was a new and distinct claim, accruing at the time of death in 2016. Therefore, its transfer to the Special Fund was precluded by Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), as the Special Fund closed to new applications effective January 1, 2014, a ruling supported by Matter of Verneau v Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board, ruling that liability did not shift to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDeath Benefits ClaimOccupational DiseaseAsbestosisCausally Related DeathLiability TransferStatutory Cut-off DateAppellate DivisionThird Judicial Department
References
2
Case No. M1996-00003-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1999

Christine Spann v. Barry Abraham, Individually, and D/B/A Sir Pizza

This case involves Christine Spann's pregnancy discrimination claim against her employer, Barry Abraham, operating as Sir Pizza, under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Spann quit her job after refusing a temporary reassignment during her pregnancy, which she alleged was discriminatory. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted a directed verdict for the employer, finding Spann failed to establish a prima facie case. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that neither direct nor circumstantial evidence supported discriminatory intent or disparate treatment compared to similarly situated non-pregnant employees. The appellate court also upheld the trial court's procedural decisions regarding post-trial motions.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTennessee Human Rights ActDirected VerdictAppellate ReviewDisparate TreatmentPrima Facie CaseConstructive DischargeTemporary ReassignmentMcDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting
References
73
Case No. 14-03-00164-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2005

Christine H. De Laurentis v. United Services Automobile Association A/K/A USAA

This case addresses an insurance-coverage dispute between policyholder Christine H. de Laurentis and insurer United Services Automobile Association (USAA) over mold damage in her apartment, allegedly caused by a leaking air conditioning unit. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for USAA, dismissing all claims. On appeal, the court reversed the summary judgment regarding the breach-of-contract claim, holding that mold damage caused by a leaking air conditioning unit could be covered as a 'physical loss' under the named-perils policy, and found that USAA had waived the inventory requirement. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the extracontractual claims.

Insurance CoverageMold DamageRenter's Insurance PolicyAir Conditioning LeakBreach of ContractExtracontractual ClaimsSummary JudgmentCondition Precedent WaiverNamed Perils PolicyPhysical Loss
References
25
Case No. ADJ3817494 (LAO 0863722)
Regular
Jun 21, 2017

CHRISTINE RANGEL vs. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT, INC

Applicant Rangel petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's award finding industrial injury and $63\%$ permanent disability, arguing she was permanently and totally disabled. Following a Commissioners' Settlement Conference, the parties executed a Compromise and Release agreement. The Board, after reviewing the agreement and the record, found it adequate and in the applicant's best interest, rescinded the prior award, and approved the Compromise and Release. This action included releasing any potential death benefit claims and approving the agreed-upon attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardChristine RangelHoneywell International IncZurich North AmericaMatrix Absence Management IncReconsiderationFindings and AwardCardiovascular system injuryPsyche injurySleep disorder
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rangel v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Lorenzo Rangel appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company regarding his bad faith claim. Rangel alleged Hartford delayed workers' compensation payments following a job-related accident in May 1988, with payments ceasing in October 1988 and resuming in February 1989 after an Industrial Accident Board (IAB) conference. The underlying compensation claim was settled for $29,000, and the Compromise Settlement Agreement (CSA), approved by the IAB, noted that the carrier's liability or extent of injury was uncertain. Hartford successfully moved for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel, arguing Rangel was precluded from relitigating the issue of uncertainty. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the IAB's finding of uncertainty of liability provided a reasonable basis for Hartford's delay in payments, thus defeating Rangel's bad faith claim.

Workers' CompensationBad Faith ClaimDelay in PaymentSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionCompromise Settlement AgreementTexas Industrial Accident BoardReasonable Basis for DelayUncertainty of Liability
References
12
Case No. NO. 14-22-00879-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2024

Lasonthia Sandles, Individually as as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Christine Rollins v. Deanna Louise Laskoskie, as Administrator of the Estates of George Delbert Laskoskie, Sr., and Louise Clymer Laskoskie

Lasonthia Sandles appealed a no-evidence summary judgment in her claims against Deanna Louise Laskoskie, administrator of the estates of George and Louise Laskoskie, stemming from the fatal injury of Christine Rollins. Rollins, an in-home caregiver for the Laskoskies, died after being attacked by animals on their property, with conflicting theories on whether dogs initiated the attack before feral hogs. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Sandles's expert report on dog involvement was conclusory and lacked scientific basis. The court found insufficient evidence, beyond mere surmise, to establish causation by the dogs for Sandles's claims of strict liability, negligent handling, or premises liability. The judgment highlighted that abundant evidence pointed towards wild hogs as the primary cause of Rollins's death.

Summary Judgment AppealNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentExpert Testimony ReliabilityConclusory EvidenceCausation ElementStrict Liability ClaimNegligent Handling ClaimPremises Liability ClaimAnimal Attack LitigationFeral Hog Attack
References
20
Case No. 01-16-00139-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2016

City of West Columbia v. J. Marcelino E. Cornejo Garcia and Wife Ernestina Rangel, and Children, M. C., J.J.C. and M.C.

This case concerns appeals and a cross-appeal before the First District of Texas Court of Appeals. Matula & Matula Construction, Inc. (Matula) moved to dismiss its appeal and the cross-appeal by J. Marcelino E. Cornejo Garcia, Ernestina Rangel, and their minor children (Appellees) for lack of jurisdiction. The City of West Columbia had previously filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity. Matula's appeal stemmed from the denial of its amended plea to the jurisdiction, citing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Division of Workers’ Compensation. Appellees' cross-appeal sought attorney's fees following the withdrawal of a Rule 91a motion. The Court granted the motion to dismiss Matula's appeal and Appellees' cross-appeal, affirming its lack of jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals from non-governmental entities or attorney's fee denials, while the City of West Columbia's appeal remains active.

Interlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to DismissSovereign ImmunityWorkers' CompensationPlea to the JurisdictionAttorney's FeesAppellate CourtCivil Practice and Remedies CodeCross-Appeal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 85 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