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

Woods v. Littleton

Jackie and Cheryl Woods sued B. L. Littleton and Joe S. Thomson, doing business as Superior Construction Company, for defective sewer systems and faulty repairs, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. The trial court found the Act applicable and actions deceptive but declined to treble damages. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded, questioning the Act's applicability. This court affirmed the remand, ruling that the Act applies to deceptive practices occurring after its effective date (May 21, 1973), even if the initial sale was earlier, and that treble damages are mandatory once liability is established. The case was remanded for a retrial to determine actual damages solely attributable to post-effective date deceptive practices, which must then be trebled.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer ProtectionMandatory Treble DamagesStatutory InterpretationRemand for RetrialSewer System DefectsFaulty Repair ServiceReal Estate TransactionPost-Effective Date ApplicabilityMental Anguish Damages
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. v. Gentry

Sharon Gentry, an employee of Deerings nursing home, sued her employer for a back injury sustained on the job in May 1988. Gentry claimed negligence, breach of contract, and deceptive trade practices under the Texas Insurance Code. The jury found against negligence but in favor of Gentry for breach of contract and deceptive practices. Deerings, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, had an employee handbook that listed 'WORKERS’ COMPENSATION' as a benefit, which Gentry interpreted as comparable to state benefits. Deerings denied Gentry's medical expenses after she refused to see their choice of doctor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding the contract findings but reversed and rendered judgment for Deerings on the deceptive trade practice claim, stating Deerings was not engaged in the business of insurance.

Non-subscriber EmployerBreach of ContractDeceptive Trade PracticesEmployment DisputeMedical Expense DisputeEmployee BenefitsTexas Insurance CodeAppellate DecisionJob InjuryEmployer Policy
References
1
Case No. 18-CV-0361
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2018

Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. McDonnell

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) sued Patrick McDonnell and his company, CabbageTech, Corp. d/b/a Coin Drop Markets (CDM), alleging a deceptive and fraudulent virtual currency scheme. The defendants were accused of offering fraudulent trading and investment services related to virtual currency, misappropriating investor funds, and misrepresenting trading advice and future profits. The primary legal questions involved the CFTC's standing to sue and whether virtual currencies are considered commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The court affirmed both questions, finding that virtual currencies function as commodities and that the CFTC has jurisdiction over fraud in underlying spot markets, not just derivatives. Consequently, the court granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the CFTC and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, concluding there was a reasonable likelihood of continued CEA violations without the injunction.

Virtual CurrencyBitcoinLitecoinCommodity Exchange ActCFTC JurisdictionFraudMisappropriationPreliminary InjunctionSpot Market RegulationFinancial Technology
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesware, Incorporated v. State

The Attorney General of Texas sought injunctive relief against Wesware, Incorporated for operating a 'pyramid selling scheme' in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The district court issued a temporary injunction, which Wesware appealed. The appellate court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding sufficient evidence of deceptive trade practices and that the scheme constituted a lottery. The court rejected Wesware's arguments that the plan was fully explained, thus not deceptive, and that the injunction was too broad or violated procedural rules. The decision emphasized that the 'pyramiding of chance upon chance' was the gravamen of the scheme, justifying the injunction.

Deceptive Trade PracticesPyramid SchemeTemporary InjunctionLotteryAbuse of DiscretionReferral SalesTexas LawConsumer ProtectionInterlocutory AppealState Attorney General
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Vavro

The State of Texas appealed the trial court's decision to grant David G. Vavro's motion for judgment notwithstanding the jury's verdict. The Attorney General, through the Consumer Protection Division, initially sued Vavro and other entities for alleged deceptive trade practices in selling discount travel club memberships. At trial, the jury found Vavro engaged in false, misleading, and deceptive acts or practices after March 8, 2003, and assessed civil penalties and attorney's fees. However, the trial judge granted Vavro's motion, concluding there was legally insufficient evidence to establish his individual liability for acts occurring within the timeframe limited by the jury charge's statute of limitations instruction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concurring that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Vavro engaged in deceptive practices after March 8, 2003, despite evidence of his general involvement in the business and the overall fraudulent nature of the travel club sales.

Deceptive Trade PracticesConsumer Protection ActJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceStatute of LimitationsFraudulent SalesTravel Club MembershipsCorporate LiabilityAppellate ProcedureBusiness Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hopkins v. Highlands Insurance Co.

Charles Milton Hopkins (Appellant) was fired by Magnolia Coca-Cola Bottling Company after Highlands Insurance Co. and Goodman-Watson Insurance Agency, Inc. (Appellees) excluded him from an insurance policy due to his driving record. Hopkins sued, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, tortious interference with a contractual relationship, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellees. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment regarding the Deceptive Trade Practices Act for both Appellees and the breach of duty claim against Watson Agency. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment against Highlands Insurance Co. for tortious interference and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, finding issues of material fact regarding Highlands' justification for exclusion based on its own guidelines and DOT regulations.

Deceptive Trade PracticesTortious InterferenceContractual RelationshipBreach of Good FaithFair DealingSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageDriving RecordExclusion from PolicyAffirmative Defense
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1994

Brandon v. American Sterilizer Co.

Genell Brandon sued American Sterilizer Company (AMSCO) for personal injuries caused by toxic chemical exposures, alleging products liability, negligence, deceptive trade practices, and breach of warranty. The trial court directed a verdict for AMSCO on the deceptive trade practices and express warranty claims, but the jury found for Brandon on negligence and products liability. Brandon appealed the directed verdict, the denial of prejudgment interest, a credit awarded to AMSCO for a workers' compensation lien settlement, and the allocation of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's rulings on the directed verdict, the credit to AMSCO, and the attorney's fees. However, the judgment was reformed to award Brandon prejudgment interest for the period between the jury's verdict (March 6, 1992) and the date of judgment (July 16, 1992). The court found Brandon was not a 'consumer' under the DTPA and lacked standing for express warranty claims.

Personal InjuryToxic ExposureProducts LiabilityNegligenceDeceptive Trade PracticesExpress WarrantyPrejudgment InterestWorkers' CompensationSubrogationAttorney's Fees
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Rehab Plus Inc.

Keith Henry sued Rehab Plus, Inc., for injuries sustained while wearing a back support belt manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment for Rehab Plus on the breach of express warranty and unfair and deceptive trade practices claims, finding a lack of evidence for an express warranty and no misleading conduct. However, the court denied summary judgment on the negligence, strict products liability, and breach of implied warranty claims. It determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendant's duty to warn foreseeable users about latent dangers associated with the back support belt and whether the product was fit for its ordinary purpose, thereby precluding summary dismissal of those claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantySummary JudgmentFailure to WarnProduct DefectBack Support BeltIndustrial SafetyDuty to Warn
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc. v. Lorac Service Corp.

This case before the Texas Supreme Court concerns a deceptive trade practices claim brought by Lorac Service Corporation against Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc., a Hertz franchisee. Lorac alleged that Sherman Simon Enterprises misrepresented that its automobile rental agreement provided liability insurance coverage and subsequently refused to honor this coverage after an accident involving a Lorac employee. While the trial court and court of appeals found in favor of Lorac, awarding treble damages and attorney's fees, Sherman Simon Enterprises appealed, challenging Lorac's consumer status and the sufficiency of evidence for misrepresentation. The Supreme Court upheld Lorac's qualification as a consumer under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. However, the court ultimately concluded there was no evidence of misrepresentation, as Sherman Simon Enterprises did provide the promised liability coverage through its insurer, even though the insurer initially refused to defend Lorac. Consequently, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of Sherman Simon Enterprises.

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Consumer StatusAutomobile Rental AgreementLiability Insurance CoverageMisrepresentationAgencyCorporation as ConsumerInsurance Contract BreachAppellate ReviewTexas Supreme Court
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,842 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