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

Lowe v. Lowe

Kerri Lowe appeals a default judgment in a divorce case from July 1996, where Jerome Jason Lowe was granted sole managing conservatorship of their children, child support, and a division of the marital estate. Mrs. Lowe's attorney, Greg Donnell, failed to appear for trial, having allegedly misled her about a continuance. The trial court denied Mrs. Lowe's motion for a new trial. The appellate court, applying the three-prong Craddock test for new trials after default judgments, found that Mrs. Lowe met all requirements: her failure to appear was due to an accident or mistake (her lawyer's misrepresentation), she presented a meritorious defense regarding child custody, and a new trial would not unduly delay or prejudice Mr. Lowe. Consequently, the court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The opinion also critically discusses the appropriateness of the Craddock test in suits affecting the parent-child relationship.

Default judgmentNew trialCraddock testParent-child relationshipDivorce proceedingsChild custodyAttorney negligenceMisrepresentationAppellate reversalTexas law
References
20
Case No. 10-10-00440-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2011

in the Interest of L.D.E. and C.E., Children

This case involves Robert's appeal against an order terminating his parental rights to his children, L.D.E. and C.E. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination suit due to allegations of domestic violence and drug/alcohol abuse by Robert and the children's mother, Lucy. The children were removed from their parents' care multiple times after failed monitored returns, which were disrupted by further incidents of family violence witnessed by the children. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that it had proper jurisdiction and that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of the children, citing factors such as domestic violence, substance abuse, Robert's criminal history and parole violations, and the detrimental impact on the children's development.

Domestic ViolenceChild WelfareParental Rights TerminationBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceJurisdictionFamily LawTexasChild NeglectSubstance Abuse
References
20
Case No. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Case No. 04-22-00264-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2023

In the Interest of E.J.M., a Child v. the State of Texas

This case concerns the termination of J.A.M.'s parental rights to his daughter, E.J.M., by the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas. The trial court's order of termination was affirmed. The jury found grounds for termination based on J.A.M.'s conduct endangering E.J.M.'s physical or emotional well-being, citing his drug use with E.J.M.'s mother during pregnancy, extensive criminal history, and an assault charge against the mother. Despite J.A.M.'s demonstrated improvements, completion of service plans, and recommendations for reunification from caseworkers, the appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the endangerment finding and that termination was in the child's best interest, emphasizing E.J.M.'s significant medical and therapeutic needs and the stability provided by the foster parents.

Parental Rights TerminationChild EndangermentDrug AbuseCriminal HistoryDomestic ViolenceBest Interest of ChildFoster CareTexas Family Code Section 161.001Appellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
32
Case No. 08-10-00222-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

David Nelson, Individually and D/B/A Collective Contracting, a Sole Proprietorship Collective Contracting, Inc. E. E. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Vernco Construction, Inc.

Vernco Construction, Inc. (Appellee) sued David Nelson and E.E. Hood & Sons, Inc. (Appellants) for multiple claims including breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and various fraud claims. The Appellants challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that Vernco had assigned its interest in the claims to Jefferson State Bank via a forbearance agreement. The appellate court examined the forbearance agreement, concluding that it unambiguously transferred ownership of the litigation and its proceeds to the bank. This transfer deprived Vernco of any retained interest or standing in the lawsuit. Consequently, the appellate court determined that both the trial court and the appellate court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, leading to the vacating of the trial court's judgment and the dismissal of the case.

StandingSubject Matter JurisdictionAssignment of ClaimsForbearance AgreementBreach of ContractAppellate JurisdictionTexas Business and Commerce CodeJudicial ReviewCase DismissalVacated Judgment
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. v. Hale

Linda Hale sued E-Z Mart Stores, Inc. for breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing after E-Z Mart stopped paying her workers' compensation benefits following a workplace injury. E-Z Mart, a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, had implemented a self-insurance program, assuring employees that claims would be handled like traditional workers' compensation. The jury found E-Z Mart breached its contract and duty of good faith, and the trial court awarded Hale significant damages. On appeal, E-Z Mart argued no contract existed and that the duty of good faith did not apply to a self-insured entity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, deeming the existence of an implied contract and holding that E-Z Mart, by assuming the role of an insurer, was subject to the duty of good faith and fair dealing. The court also rejected E-Z Mart's statute of limitations defense.

Workers' CompensationSelf-InsuranceBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingImplied ContractTexas LawStatute of LimitationsEmployer LiabilityEmployee BenefitsAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

in the Interest of E.M. and J.M., Children

Jessica M. and Daniel M. appealed the judgment terminating their parental rights for children E.M. and J.M. Jessica raised issues regarding the admissibility of E.M.'s therapist statements, the legal and factual sufficiency of evidence for predicate grounds and best interest, and errors in jury instructions. Daniel challenged the admissibility of E.M.'s statements and the sufficiency of evidence for best interest. The court found E.M.'s statements, detailing abuse and neglect, to be admissible and reliable. Parental rights were terminated based on findings of endangerment through conditions, conduct, and failure to comply with court orders. Evidence included a domestic disturbance, K2 drug use allegations, positive drug tests, parental instability, and E.M.'s expressed fear. The court affirmed the jury's findings against Jessica. Daniel's sufficiency complaints were not preserved, and jury charge errors were overruled. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Abuse and NeglectHearsay EvidenceChild Therapist TestimonyDomestic ViolenceDrug AbuseSufficiency of EvidenceBest Interest of the ChildJury InstructionsAppellate Procedure
References
56
Case No. 2-06-132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2007

William Lowe, M.D. v. Mary Hernandez

Mary Hernandez, an employee of Calico Corners, sustained a work-related wrist injury and was treated by Dr. William Lowe. Dr. Lowe completed Texas Workers’ Compensation Work Status Reports (WSRs) throughout her recovery. Following a Functional Capacity Examination (FCE), Dr. Lowe mistakenly reported a permanent five-pound lifting restriction for Hernandez instead of fifty pounds, despite the FCE showing she could lift up to fifty pounds for some tasks. Calico Corners terminated Hernandez's employment based on this erroneous permanent restriction, as her job required lifting up to fifty pounds. Hernandez sued Dr. Lowe for negligence, claiming his misreporting and failure to correct the error caused her termination. A jury found Dr. Lowe 100% negligent, awarding Hernandez $179,589 in damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of Dr. Lowe's negligence and rejecting his arguments regarding expert testimony, contributory negligence, and charge errors.

References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

E.V.R. II Associates, Ltd. v. Brundige

Riley T. Brundige, a security service employee, sued E.V.R. II Associates, Ltd., E.V.R. II Partnership, and Enclave Development Corporation (Enclave) for personal injuries sustained from a fall on their premises on April 18, 1987. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company intervened as the workers' compensation carrier for Brundige's employer, seeking subrogation for $47,293.73 in indemnity and medical payments. A jury found in favor of Brundige, awarding him $270,468.43, and Liberty Mutual was awarded $46,500.00 from Brundige's recovery, plus $22,000.00 in attorney's fees. Enclave appealed, raising points regarding the admission of workers' compensation benefits evidence, the denial of a separate trial for Liberty Mutual's subrogation claim, jury challenges, and the admission of post-accident repair photographs. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error.

Premises LiabilityPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation SubrogationEvidentiary RulesSubsequent Remedial MeasuresJury SelectionPeremptory ChallengesAntagonism Between PartiesInterventionAppellate Review
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 2,153 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