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. 07-07-0288-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2009

State Office of Risk Management v. Rachel Leigh Herrera, Victoria Danielle Herrera, Matthew Ryen Herrera, Kelcey Mercedes Dena Herrera, Care'n Destiny Herrera, Beneficiaries of Jose Arturo Herrera, And Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed the trial court's dismissal of its lawsuit seeking judicial review of an appeals panel decision, which found SORM responsible for paying death benefits to the beneficiaries of deceased police officer Jose Herrera. Officer Herrera died in the line of duty, and SORM denied liability, arguing he was employed by the City of Friona, a self-insured entity, not the State. The trial court dismissed SORM's suit because SORM failed to timely name the City of Friona as a defendant within the statutory 40-day period. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the City of Friona was an indispensable party and the 40-day limitations period was not tolled for misidentification of parties. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to certain Herrera defendants, deeming SORM's claims against them to be without foundation.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilitySubject Matter JurisdictionIndispensable PartyAttorney's FeesStatutory BeneficiariesMisidentification of PartiesAppellate Court DecisionTexas Labor Law
References
20
Case No. 13-15-00167-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2015

Hidalgo County, Texas v. Dora Herrera, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Reynaldo Herrera, Eric Herrera, Efren Herrera, Michael Herrera, Jessica Herrera Rodriguez, Celia Herrera, Vanessa Herrera, Veronica Herrera Rodriguez Herrera, and Rey Herrera

This is an interlocutory appeal regarding a wrongful death and bystander claim filed against Hidalgo County following a fatal automobile collision involving a fleeing suspect. Hidalgo County's deputy was pursuing the suspect, but was reportedly 2-3 minutes behind the fleeing vehicle at the time of the accident. Hidalgo County filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity and arguing that plaintiffs failed to prove a waiver of immunity or breach of the emergency standard of care. The County also contested the reliability of the plaintiffs' expert report. The trial court denied Hidalgo County's Plea to the Jurisdiction, leading to this appeal where the County seeks a reversal.

AppealPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActWrongful DeathAutomobile CollisionPolice PursuitEmergency VehicleReckless Disregard
References
51
Case No. VNO 0510043
Regular
Jan 11, 2008

JOSEPH HERRERA (Deceased) CONNIE HERRERA (Widow) vs. CITY OF MONTEBELLO, Permissibly Self-Insured, Adjusted By HAZELRIGG RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a previous decision. The amended decision specifies the death benefit for the deceased applicant, Joseph Herrera, as $125,000.00, payable weekly from the date of death. The rest of the November 5, 2007 decision was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoseph Herrera (Deceased)Connie Herrera (Widow)City of MontebelloHazelrigg Risk ManagementOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationWCJ reportdeath benefit$\$ 125
References
0
Case No. 09-19-00250-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2021

Melinda Herrera v. Wendell Legacy Homes, LLC

Melinda Herrera appealed a trial court's take-nothing judgment on her claims against Wendell Legacy Homes, LLC. Herrera had filed counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud in a real estate transaction, alleging that Wendell Homes failed to timely close on a home, return earnest money, and made false representations. Wendell Homes had also sought damages under promissory estoppel and quantum meruit for costs incurred in making ADA modifications requested by Herrera. The jury found that Wendell Homes breached the contract and committed fraud by false promise, but awarded Herrera zero damages and zero attorney's fees. The jury also found that Herrera promised to pay for ADA modifications, which Wendell Homes relied upon, but awarded Wendell Homes zero for this claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that some evidence supported the jury's findings of zero damages for Herrera's claims, particularly given evidence that the $50,000 paid by Herrera was used for modifications and their reversal. The court also upheld the zero attorney's fees, ruling that Herrera's attorney's affidavit was conclusory and that Herrera was not a 'prevailing party' as she received no meaningful judicial relief.

Real Estate FraudBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelQuantum MeruitDamagesAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictTake-Nothing JudgmentTexas Law
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herrera v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Ysmael Herrera appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) in an action to mature an award by the Industrial Accident Board. Herrera argued that TEIA had not diligently served him in their prior suit to set aside the Board's award, thus failing to properly prosecute the suit. The court found that TEIA had timely filed its suit and caused citation to be issued the next day, satisfying the statutory requirements for 'bringing suit'. Despite the delay in service being occasioned by Herrera's absence, the court concluded that TEIA demonstrated a continuing intent to prosecute the suit. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that Herrera's action to mature the award would not lie.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAppealIndustrial Accident BoardDiligence in ServiceProsecution of SuitTexas LawStatutory InterpretationDue DiligenceCitation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Herrera v. FMC Corp.

Luis Herrera, an oilfield hand, sued FMC Corporation after sustaining injuries when a Chiksan swivel joint and other overhead equipment fell from a derrick. Herrera alleged that FMC failed to warn of the potential dangers associated with using the Chiksan as a continuous rotation swivel and without proper chaining. The jury found that while such dangers existed, FMC's failure to warn did not expose Herrera to an unreasonable risk of harm, and FMC had provided adequate instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's 'take nothing' judgment, upholding the exclusion of certain expert testimony and the admission of evidence regarding third-party misuse as a sole proximate cause of the accident. The court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court and determined that the jury's findings were supported by sufficient evidence.

products liabilityfailure to warnjury findingsexpert testimonymisuse defensesole proximate causeappellate reviewoilfield equipmentChiksan swivel jointindustrial accident
References
10
Case No. 01-22-00793-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2024

Francisco Herrera v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.

Francisco Herrera, Sr. (Appellant) sued Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. (Appellee) for declaratory judgment, unjust enrichment, restitution, and money had and received. Herrera alleged Sunbelt improperly filed a lien on his real property based on a default judgment against a 'Francisco Herrera,' whom he claimed was his son. He asserted he was coerced into paying $170,877.75 to remove the lien to facilitate a property sale. The trial court granted Sunbelt's plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the case as moot. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the voluntary payment rule, when payment is made under alleged duress, is a defense to a restitution claim, not a jurisdictional bar. The appellate court also found a live controversy existed regarding Francisco Herrera, Sr.'s identity as the judgment debtor and the propriety of the abstract of judgment, thus denying the plea to jurisdiction.

Plea to JurisdictionMootnessVoluntary Payment RuleDeclaratory JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentRestitutionCollateral AttackSubject Matter JurisdictionAbstract of JudgmentLien Removal
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Herrera

This case concerns motions filed by Capital One Auto Finance and Marco Herrera in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. Capital One sought relief from the automatic stay, while the Debtor, Marco Herrera, cross-moved to redeem his 2006 Yukon Denali under 11 U.S.C. § 722. The central issue revolved around determining the appropriate replacement value of the vehicle for redemption. The Debtor's proposed valuation of $6,425, supported by a Kelley Blue Book report for a different vehicle model, was rejected by the Court. The Court considered Capital One's expert appraisal and determined the replacement value to be $17,000. Additionally, the Court ruled that the automatic stay terminated due to the Debtor's failure to timely perform his stated intention to redeem, but clarified that this did not extinguish his underlying right to redeem the vehicle.

BankruptcyChapter 7Automatic StayRedemptionVehicle ValuationSecured ClaimReplacement ValueDebtor's Statement of IntentionTimelinessEvidentiary Hearing
References
20
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05519 [232 AD3d 958]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2024

Matter of Herrera v. American Badge, Inc.

Claimant Patricio Herrera appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board which disallowed his claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging he contracted COVID-19 during his employment as a manager at a badge factory. The Board found that Herrera failed to establish that his COVID-19 contraction was work-related, despite his testimony and that of his treating physician regarding symptom onset and positive test results. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, noting that while COVID-19 can be a compensable injury if work-related, Herrera did not provide sufficient evidence of specific exposure or an elevated risk in his work environment. The court concluded that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and would not be disturbed.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryWorkplace ExposureSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCausally-Related InjuryFactory WorkerDisallowed ClaimBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Herrera

This case addresses whether a pretrial services officer can initiate proceedings to revoke pretrial release conditions. Defendant Kiamesha Herrera was indicted for wire fraud and released on bond, subject to conditions including refraining from controlled substance use. After Herrera tested positive for marihuana, a pretrial services officer filed a petition for revocation, which the magistrate judge dismissed, ruling that only the attorney for the government has the authority to initiate such proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). The government appealed, but the district court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision, emphasizing that the statute unambiguously designates the government attorney as the sole initiator and that the Pretrial Services Agency's role is limited to informing and recommending. The court rejected arguments based on common practice or administrative efficiency as reasons to contravene clear statutory language.

Pretrial ReleaseRevocation of ReleaseStatutory InterpretationGovernment AuthorityPretrial Services AgencyJurisdictionProcedural DefectControlled Substances ViolationWire FraudMagistrate Judge Ruling
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 553 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