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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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
20
Case No. 03-96-00415-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1997

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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
18
Case No. 11-19-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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
33
Case No. 13-09-00277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2010

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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
19
Case No. 04-04-00182-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2004

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

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
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Roel De Los Santos, a heavy equipment operator, sustained work-related injuries to both wrists in 1987 and 1994, leading to multiple surgeries and a diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS I) in both hands and arms. After the Division of Workers’ Compensation denied his claim for lifetime income benefits (LIBs) against Texas Mutual Insurance Company, De Los Santos sought judicial review. The trial court reversed the Division's decision, finding that De Los Santos's 1994 injury extended to CRPS I and insomnia, and that he permanently lost the use of both hands, entitling him to LIBs from the Subsequent Injury Fund. The Division appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for LIBs and the trial court's jurisdiction to order the Fund to pay directly. The appellate court affirmed De Los Santos's entitlement to LIBs, finding sufficient medical evidence of total and permanent loss of hand use, but modified the judgment to remove the direct order for the Subsequent Injury Fund to pay, instructing De Los Santos to present the judgment to the Fund for payment through proper administrative procedure.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsComplex Regional Pain SyndromeCRPS IHand InjuryWork-Related InjuryJudicial ReviewSubsequent Injury FundSufficiency of EvidenceMedical Testimony
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Joe De La Garza was severely injured while operating a forklift, loading pallets of meat into a truck owned by J.R. Beadel & Company, driven by Everett Lemond. Lemond, believing the loading was complete, drove the truck away from the dock while De La Garza was still inside with the forklift, causing him to fall. De La Garza recovered a judgment in a negligence action, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that De La Garza had no duty to anticipate Lemond's negligent actions and that evidence of workers' compensation benefits, which had ceased prior to trial, was properly excluded for impeachment purposes.

NegligenceForklift AccidentProper LookoutContributory NegligenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEvidence AdmissibilityImpeachmentDuty to AnticipatePersonal InjuryThird-Party Tort-feasor
References
8
Case No. 13-12-00536-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2014

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of a special appearance by TV Azteca, Patricia Chapoy, and Publimax (Media Defendants). The Media Defendants were sued for defamation by Gloria Trevino Ruiz and Armando Gomez Martinez (Trevi Parties). The appellate court found that the Media Defendants purposefully directed their television broadcasts, including the program 'Ventaneando' containing allegedly defamatory statements, to residents in South Texas, which amounted to over one million viewers. This extensive broadcasting established sufficient minimum contacts for specific jurisdiction. The court concluded that exercising jurisdiction in Texas would not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

DefamationPersonal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsDue ProcessTexas Long-Arm StatuteBroadcast MediaIntentional TortAppellate ReviewPurposeful Availment
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Plaintiff Harry de la Concha sued his former employer, Fordham University, alleging discrimination based on race (Latino) and national origin (Puerto Rican) after his termination. Fordham moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the discharge. The court found no evidence to support a claim of national origin discrimination and granted summary judgment to Fordham on that claim. Regarding the race discrimination claim, the court determined that de la Concha failed to demonstrate that Fordham's stated reasons for his dismissal were a pretext for discrimination, despite an immediate supervisor's use of racial slurs. Consequently, the court granted Fordham's motion for summary judgment on the race claim, dismissing de la Concha's Title VII claim in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentPretextHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 726 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