Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-96-00415-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 28, 1997

Workers' Compensation Division, Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Beverly De La Zerda and Rudy De La Zerda

The Workers' Compensation Division, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, appealed a judgment concerning a personal injury suit. Appellee Beverly de la Zerda, a state employee, and Rudy de la Zerda, sued Americlean Concepts after Beverly sustained injuries at work. Following a settlement between the de la Zerdas and Americlean, the trial court issued a final take-nothing judgment. Subsequently, the de la Zerdas moved to allocate the settlement proceeds, a proposal objected to by the Division, which asserted its subrogation interest. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the Division's petition to intervene was untimely as the original final judgment had not been set aside.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryJurisdictionInterventionFinal JudgmentSettlement AllocationSubrogationAppellate ProcedureTimelinessLien

References

Case No. 11-19-00123-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 08, 2021

Pedro De La Rosa and Angelina De La Rosa v. Basic Energy Services, L.P., by and Through Its General Partner, Basic Energy Services GP, LLC

Pedro and Angelina De La Rosa appealed a trial court's order granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed by Basic Energy Services, L.P. and Basic Energy Services GP, LLC. The De La Rosas alleged intentional injuries to Pedro during a work-related truck accident and subsequent medical interference, plus Angelina's loss of consortium. The Eleventh Court of Appeals determined that the Appellants' claims fell under the intentional-injury exception to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, thereby establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also clarified that election of remedies is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Intentional InjuryWorkers Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionExclusive RemedyElection of RemediesTruck AccidentEmployer LiabilityMedical InterferenceLoss of Consortium

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Fuentes v. Union de Pasteurizadores de Juarez Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable

This case is an accelerated appeal concerning a temporary injunction. Union de Pasteurizadores de Juarez (UPJ), a Mexican corporation, sued Jorge Zaragosa Fuentes, Rodrigo Mendoza Delagado, and Jose Chaparro Amparan for conversion of financial documents needed for a Mexican tax audit. The trial court issued a temporary injunction compelling the defendants to produce the documents. On appeal, the defendants argued against the injunction, citing statute of limitations, lack of irreparable injury, speculative harm, and clarity issues with the order and bond. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's temporary injunction, ruling that UPJ demonstrated a probable right to recovery and faced irreparable harm, including potential civil and criminal actions in Mexico, if the documents were not provided. The court also found the injunction order sufficiently clear and the bond adequate, dismissing the statute of limitations argument as a merits issue not appropriate for interlocutory review.

Temporary InjunctionConversionAccelerated AppealFinancial RecordsMexican Tax AuditIrreparable HarmProbable Right to RecoveryAbuse of DiscretionStatute of LimitationsRule 683

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Benjamin v. Traffic Executive Ass'n-Eastern

Plaintiffs, employees of the Eastern Weighing and Inspection Bureau (EWIB), sought protective benefits under the Staggers Act after their employment was terminated due to EWIB ceasing operations. An arbitration board determined that EWIB employees were not 'employees of a rate bureau' and thus not entitled to the benefits. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint in federal court, alleging violations of the Staggers Act, mail fraud, RICO, and common law fraud, and moved for a trial de novo. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the arbitration award should be upheld. The court reviewed the arbitration award under the limited provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), finding no grounds to set it aside. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiffs' motion for a trial de novo, and dismissed the complaint.

Staggers ActArbitration AwardSummary JudgmentRailway Labor ActCollateral EstoppelDue ProcessArticle III CourtsJury TrialRICOAdministrative Procedure Act

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

K. R. Playa VI, S. De R.L. De C v. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty De Mexico, S.A. De C v.

This case involves a consolidated appeal over title insurance claims for properties in Mexico. Appellants Citigroup Global Markets Realty Group and K.R. Playa VI challenged a trial court's judgment favoring appellees Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty de Mexico. The dispute centered on whether an exclusion in the title insurance policies, related to K.R. Playa's knowledge of a Mexican expropriation decree affecting the properties, precluded coverage and influenced the damages award. The jury found K.R. Playa knew of the decree for ten properties and awarded zero damages for the remaining six. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on K.R. Playa's knowledge and the zero damages, and addressing issues concerning expert testimony and state-law claims.

Title InsuranceReal Estate DisputeProperty ValuationBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodeExpropriation DecreeMexican LawInternational PropertyAppellate Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Johnson

Glenda Moore sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Joe Johnson to set aside an order compelling her to undergo a physical examination by a neurosurgeon without her chiropractor present, as requested by Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA). Moore argued that Article 8307, Section 4(b) of the workers' compensation statutes, which allows a claimant to have a chiropractor present, applied to district court proceedings. TEIA contended that this statute applied only to Industrial Accident Board (IAB) proceedings, and Rule 167a of the Rules of Civil Procedure governed de novo trials, granting the court broad discretion without the restrictions of Section 4(b). The court found that Section 4(b) exclusively applied to IAB proceedings and Rule 167a controlled de novo trials. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was denied, affirming the trial court's discretion.

Workers' CompensationMandamusPhysical ExaminationMedical ExaminationTrial De NovoIndustrial Accident Board (IAB)Rules of Civil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionChiropractor Presence

References

Case No. 04-18-00906-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 30, 2019

American Assurance Company v. Noela De Los Santos, Individually and as Next Friend of Kimberly A. Ruiz

Juan De Los Santos was killed in a motor vehicle accident while traveling to work. His wife, Noela De Los Santos, sought judicial review after a workers' compensation appeals panel denied benefits, ruling Juan was not in the course and scope of employment. The trial court reversed the panel's decision and granted summary judgment for Noela. American Home Assurance Company, the employer's insurer, appealed, arguing the truck Juan was driving was gratuitously furnished. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Juan's travel originated in his employer's business, conflicting affidavits from the employer's owner and Juan's wife. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment for Noela and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationCourse and Scope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTravel to WorkEmployer-Provided TransportationMaterial FactTexas LawInsurance CarrierRemand

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Foley

The petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals' (the board) determination that a drug abuse counseling center was a permitted use for Daytop Village Foundation, Inc. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, annulled the board's decision and remitted the matter for a de novo hearing. Daytop and the board members appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, confirmed the board's original determination, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits. The court found the board's interpretation of the zoning ordinance, which permitted 'professional office uses,' to be rational and supported by substantial evidence, noting that Daytop's facility was licensed and staffed by professionals.

Zoning OrdinanceProfessional Office UseDrug Abuse Counseling CenterPermitted UseTown of GreenburghZoning Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceLand Use

References

Case No. 13-09-00277-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 24, 2010

Homero Eduardo Falcon Martinez and Falrey, S.A. De Cv v. Hugo Garcia De Anda, Mineria Y Energia Del Noreste, S.A., Star Fuels Limited, Michael Loughran and Joseph Loughran

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order granting special appearances for the appellees. Appellants, Homero Eduardo Falcon Martinez and Falrey, S.A. de C.V., brought suit against the appellees, alleging various claims stemming from a coal mining operation in Mexico. The appellants contended that the trial court erred in its ruling, arguing that the appellees had failed to negate all jurisdictional bases and that both specific and general personal jurisdiction over them was proper. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the non-resident appellees lacked sufficient contacts with Texas to establish either specific or general personal jurisdiction. The court also found that the appellants did not successfully prove their theories of agency or alter ego to impute contacts to the appellees.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsGeneral JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionPurposeful AvailmentAlter Ego TheoryAgency RelationshipBreach of ContractFraud

References

Case No. 04-04-00182-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 08, 2004

Sandra Silva De Tamez, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Juan Guadalupe Tamez, (Deceased) and as Next Friend of Denise Silva De Tamez, a Minor Child, (APPELLANT) Michael G. Willoughby, (APPELLANT) v. Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Sandra Silva de Tamez and Michael G. Willoughby against a summary judgment in favor of Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc. (SMT). Tamez, representing the estate of Juan Guadalupe Tamez, and Willoughby had sued SMT under the Wrongful Death Act and Survival Statute following a fatal tractor-trailer accident. SMT's defense was based on pre-injury release agreements signed by Tamez and Willoughby, which SMT argued released it from liability. The appellate court reviewed the enforceability of these agreements, addressing issues such as fair notice, meeting of the minds (including Tamez's English literacy), the presence of valid consideration, and public policy arguments related to employment relationships (statutory or borrowed servant). The court concluded that the release agreements were valid and binding, satisfying all contractual requirements, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Summary Judgment AppealWrongful Death ActSurvival StatuteRelease AgreementWaiver and ReleaseFair Notice RequirementsExpress Negligence DoctrineConspicuousnessContractual RequirementsMeeting of the Minds

References

Showing 1-10 of 9,679 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-96-00415-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 28, 1997

Workers' Compensation Division, Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Beverly De La Zerda and Rudy De La Zerda

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryJurisdictionInterventionFinal JudgmentSettlement AllocationSubrogationAppellate ProcedureTimelinessLien

References

Case No. 11-19-00123-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 08, 2021

Pedro De La Rosa and Angelina De La Rosa v. Basic Energy Services, L.P., by and Through Its General Partner, Basic Energy Services GP, LLC

Intentional InjuryWorkers Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionExclusive RemedyElection of RemediesTruck AccidentEmployer LiabilityMedical InterferenceLoss of Consortium

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Fuentes v. Union de Pasteurizadores de Juarez Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable

Temporary InjunctionConversionAccelerated AppealFinancial RecordsMexican Tax AuditIrreparable HarmProbable Right to RecoveryAbuse of DiscretionStatute of LimitationsRule 683

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Benjamin v. Traffic Executive Ass'n-Eastern

Staggers ActArbitration AwardSummary JudgmentRailway Labor ActCollateral EstoppelDue ProcessArticle III CourtsJury TrialRICOAdministrative Procedure Act

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

K. R. Playa VI, S. De R.L. De C v. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty De Mexico, S.A. De C v.

Title InsuranceReal Estate DisputeProperty ValuationBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodeExpropriation DecreeMexican LawInternational PropertyAppellate Review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Johnson

References

Case No. 04-18-00906-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 30, 2019

American Assurance Company v. Noela De Los Santos, Individually and as Next Friend of Kimberly A. Ruiz

Workers' CompensationCourse and Scope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTravel to WorkEmployer-Provided TransportationMaterial FactTexas LawInsurance CarrierRemand

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Foley

Zoning OrdinanceProfessional Office UseDrug Abuse Counseling CenterPermitted UseTown of GreenburghZoning Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceLand Use

References

Case No. 13-09-00277-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 24, 2010

Homero Eduardo Falcon Martinez and Falrey, S.A. De Cv v. Hugo Garcia De Anda, Mineria Y Energia Del Noreste, S.A., Star Fuels Limited, Michael Loughran and Joseph Loughran

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsGeneral JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionPurposeful AvailmentAlter Ego TheoryAgency RelationshipBreach of ContractFraud

References

Case No. 04-04-00182-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 08, 2004

Sandra Silva De Tamez, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Juan Guadalupe Tamez, (Deceased) and as Next Friend of Denise Silva De Tamez, a Minor Child, (APPELLANT) Michael G. Willoughby, (APPELLANT) v. Southwestern Motor Transport, Inc.

References

Showing 1-10 of 9,679 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.