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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huffine v. Tomball Hospital Authority

Justice Fowler concurs with the majority's result but disagrees with applying the Craddock test to an appellant's failure to appear at a summary judgment hearing. She argues that summary judgment hearings are not evidentiary and decisions rely on filed documents, not oral arguments. The opinion reviews previous applications of Craddock, such as failure to answer lawsuits, missing trials, or dismissals for want of prosecution, where prejudice to the party's legal position was clear. Fowler concludes that when a party has filed a response, their rights are protected, and failure to appear at the oral hearing should not trigger the Craddock test, as the ruling is based on documents, making the oral hearing non-dispositive.

Summary JudgmentCraddock TestFailure to AppearConcurring OpinionTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEvidentiary ProceedingsDefault JudgmentDismissal for Want of Prosecution
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Old Republic Insurance Co. v. Scott

Old Republic appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial following a default judgment entered against it in favor of Lola Scott, an employee who filed a workers' compensation claim. Old Republic, the workers' compensation carrier for ARA Food Services, argued that its failure to file a timely answer was due to mistake or accident, not intentional or conscious indifference, satisfying the first prong of the Craddock test. The trial court and court of appeals had affirmed the denial, but the appellate court found that Old Republic's uncontroverted affidavits established the first Craddock element. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for consideration of the remaining Craddock test elements.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock TestWorkers' Compensation ClaimConscious IndifferenceMistake or AccidentMeritorious DefenseAppellate ProcedureReversal
References
10
Case No. M2023-01034-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2024

Moye Jones v. Cathleen M. Craddock

This case involves an auto accident where Moye and Katherine Jones sued Cathleen Craddock and their uninsured motorist carrier, Erie Insurance Exchange. Erie sought to reduce its $50,000 uninsured motorist coverage by offsetting workers' compensation benefits it claimed were "payable" to Mr. Jones, despite evidence that he had received all authorized workers' compensation care and his case was closed. The trial court granted summary judgment to Erie. However, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings, finding that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether Mr. Jones was entitled to additional workers' compensation benefits and if his actions constituted a voluntary waiver, distinguishing the case from precedents where claimants entirely failed to pursue workers' compensation benefits.

Auto AccidentUninsured Motorist CoverageWorkers' Compensation OffsetSummary JudgmentVoluntary Waiver of BenefitsInsurance Policy InterpretationAppellate ReviewGenuine Issues of Material FactPayable BenefitsEntitlement to Benefits
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director, State Employees Workers' Compensation Division v. Evans

The director of the State Employees Workers’ Compensation Division appealed the denial of their Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and Motion for New Trial. A default judgment had been entered against the State in favor of Paulette Evans when the State's counsel failed to appear for trial. The State argued that Evans failed to comply with a statutory notice requirement and that they met the *Craddock* test for a new trial. The appellate court found that the State did not present evidence at the hearing on their motion for a new trial to satisfy the *Craddock* test. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's denial of the State’s motions.

default judgmentmotion to set asidenew trialCraddock testabuse of discretionworkers' compensationstatutory noticeappellate reviewevidentiary burdenTexas law
References
8
Case No. No. 10-08-00306-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2009

Donna Robinson v. Elliott Electric Supply

Donna Robinson was sued by Elliott Electric Supply on a guaranty agreement, leading to a default judgment against her. Robinson's subsequent motion for a new trial was overruled by operation of law. On appeal, Robinson argued that service was deficient or she met the Craddock test elements for a new trial. The appellate court found that Robinson satisfied all three elements of the Craddock test, demonstrating that her failure to appear was not intentional, she presented a meritorious defense, and granting a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestService of ProcessGuaranty AgreementAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureRemandConscious Indifference
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of G.B.A.

Glenn Gary Armstrong appealed the denial of his motion for a new trial after the County Court at Law of Hopkins County denied his petition to terminate or modify a child-support wage-withholding order for his ex-wife, Marsha Cochran. Armstrong's attorney failed to appear for the original hearing, forcing Armstrong to represent himself. The trial court denied his petition and subsequently overruled his motion for a new trial, which was based on the Craddock test for default judgments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the Craddock test was inapplicable because Armstrong was present and participated in the hearing, thus it was not a default judgment.

Child SupportWage WithholdingMotion for New TrialDefault JudgmentCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewFamily LawTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scenic Mountain Medical Center v. Castillo

This case concerns an appeal from a default judgment issued against Scenic Mountain Medical Center, also known as Big Spring Hospital Corporation. The appellant contended that the trial court abused its discretion by not granting their motion for a new trial after the default judgment was entered. The appellate court reviewed the application of the 'Craddock test,' which outlines the conditions for setting aside a default judgment. It was determined that Scenic Mountain Medical Center failed to prove that their omission to file an answer was unintentional or accidental, thereby not satisfying the initial requirement of the 'Craddock' test. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Default judgmentMotion for new trialAbuse of discretionCraddock testFailure to answerConscious indifferenceMistake or accidentAppellate reviewCivil procedureTexas law
References
9
Case No. 14-03-01447-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2004

Maria Isabel Martinez v. Daniel Ruel Martinez

Appellant Maria Isabel Martinez appealed a default judgment entered against her and in favor of appellee Daniel Ruel Martinez. Maria argued the trial court erred by failing to set aside the default judgment under the Craddock test and that the final divorce decree violated Section 153.004 of the Texas Family Code by appointing Daniel managing conservator with exclusive authority over the children's domicile. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding Maria's failure to answer was due to her own neglect and indifference, thus failing the first prong of the Craddock test. Furthermore, the court found Maria waived her argument regarding Section 153.004 by not raising it in the trial court.

DivorceChild ConservatorshipDefault JudgmentCraddock TestAppellate ProcedureFamily LawTexas LawProcedural Due ProcessParental RightsAbuse of Discretion
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharpe v. Kilcoyne

Sara Sharpe appealed the trial court's default judgment and denial of her motion for a new trial in Barton Kilcoyne's suit for breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy to defraud. Sharpe argued lack of notice for the trial setting and satisfaction of the Craddock test for a new trial. The court found Sharpe had constructive notice due to her refusal of mail and failure to update her address. Furthermore, the court determined Sharpe failed the Craddock test's conscious indifference prong, upholding the striking of her pleadings as a valid discovery sanction given her disappearance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, including the award of punitive damages, citing a controlling precedent that allows fraud damages even when actual damages arise from a breach of contract.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialDue ProcessConstructive NoticeConscious IndifferenceDiscovery SanctionsPunitive DamagesBreach of ContractFraudulent InducementAbuse of Discretion
References
25
Case No. 13-09-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2010

Robert Sutherland, Jesus De La Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body v. Robert Keith Spencer

This case is an appeal from the denial of a motion for new trial after a default judgment was entered against Robert Sutherland, Jesse Garza, and Southern Customs Paint and Body (appellants) in favor of Robert Keith Spencer (appellee). The appellants argued that the default judgment was void due to improper service and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motion for new trial, contending they satisfied the Craddock test. The court addressed the misnomer issue regarding service on Jesse Garza and Southern Customs, finding that the correct parties were served and not misled. Furthermore, the court concluded that the appellants failed to meet the first prong of the Craddock test, as their failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, thus affirming the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialService of ProcessMisnomerCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 936 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