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

Richmond v. LD BRINKMAN & CO.(TEXAS)

Donald Richmond, an employee of Pacesetter Personnel Service, Inc., was severely injured while working for L.D. Brinkman & Company (Texas) Inc. Donald received workers' compensation benefits from Pacesetter's insurer, CNA Insurance. Subsequently, Robert Richmond, as Donald's legal guardian, and Pacesetter sued Brinkman for negligence. Brinkman successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing Donald was a 'borrowed servant' and thus immune from common law liability under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. On appeal, Richmond and Pacesetter contended that Chapter 92 of the Texas Labor Code superseded the common law 'borrowed servant' doctrine. The appellate court disagreed, finding Chapter 92 did not supersede common law in this context, and affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Workers' CompensationBorrowed Servant DoctrineSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimExclusive RemedyRight of Control TestAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
17
Case No. 05-12-01407-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2015

Christian Care Centers, Inc. v. Rebecca O'Banion and Janis L. Wood, Individually and as Personal Representatives of tEH Estate of J.D. Richmond

Christian Care Centers, Inc. (CCC) appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Rebecca O’Banion and Janis L. Wood, as personal representatives of J.D. Richmond's estate. Richmond died after falling on a drainage grate at a CCC facility. The plaintiffs sued for negligence, alleging unsafe conditions and failure to warn. The jury found both CCC and Richmond 50% negligent and awarded damages for mental anguish and loss of companionship. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the dangerous condition, foreseeability of death, and compensable mental anguish, and no abuse of discretion in submitting Richmond's negligence or denying gross negligence claims.

Premises LiabilityNegligencePersonal InjuryWrongful DeathComparative NegligenceMental Anguish DamagesForeseeabilityDrainage Grate HazardAssisted Living FacilityElderly Care
References
52
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06842
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2025

Cerro v. 97 Port Richmond Ave, LLC

Jose Cerro, an employee of Justino Landscaping, Inc., was injured after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree near a garage owned by 97 Port Richmond Ave, LLC, and Frenchies Port Richmond Equities, LLC. Cerro sued, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied Cerro's motion for summary judgment on liability and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that a tree is not a 'building or structure' under the statute and the work was not part of an alteration or renovation. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that tree-cutting does not fall within the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1).

Ladder fallLabor LawSafe place to workTree cuttingBuilding or structureSummary judgmentAppellate reviewPersonal injuryProperty owner liabilityConstruction safety
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diana G-D v. Bedford Central School District

Diana G-D, a third-grader, was allegedly sexually abused by her stepfather, Cesar Joel Sagastume Morales, between December 2005 and August 2006. Her mother, Ann D., learned of the abuse in August 2006 and reported it to the police, leading to Sagastume Morales's eventual conviction. Diana G-D, through her mother, sued the Bedford Central School District, principal Victoria Graboski, and school psychologist Kelly Cieslinski-Schleuter for negligence in failing to report suspected abuse as required by Social Services Law § 413. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to report based on the available information and that any failure was not 'knowing and willful.' The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding no 'reasonable cause' to suspect abuse that would trigger a mandatory reporting duty.

Child abuseSexual abuseNegligenceSocial Services LawMandatory reportingSchool liabilitySummary judgmentReasonable causeKnowing and willful failureQualified immunity
References
14
Case No. 14-05-00060-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2006

Diana J. Kemp v. Rebecca D. Havens

Rebecca D. Havens sued Diana J. Kemp for personal injuries resulting from an automobile collision. Kemp stipulated to liability, and the trial focused on damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering, and physical impairment, which the jury awarded to Havens. On appeal, Kemp challenged the causal link between the collision and the damages awarded, specifically questioning the evidence of newly herniated disks and the admission of Havens' testimony about needing future surgery. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict as a whole and no cumulative error. The court noted Kemp's failure to preserve certain factual sufficiency complaints and affirmed the trial court's discretion in admitting testimony.

Personal InjuryAutomobile CollisionNegligenceDamagesMedical ExpensesPain and SufferingPhysical ImpairmentHerniated DisksWhiplashExpert Testimony
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diana Ruiz Esparza v. University of Texas at El Paso

Diana Ruiz Esparza sued The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) under the TCHRA, alleging age, national origin, and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. The trial court dismissed all claims, granting UTEP's plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Esparza's disparate pay, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims. However, the court reversed and remanded Esparza's age, sex, and national origin discrimination claims, allowing her an opportunity to amend her pleadings to include her "without pay" suspensions as adverse employment actions.

DiscriminationEmployment LawAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTexas Commission of Human Rights ActTCHRAAdverse Employment Action
References
47
Case No. 08-02-00300-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2003

Diana D. Olien v. University of Texas of the Permian Basin

Diana D. Olien, a professor at the University of Texas of the Permian Basin (UTPB), filed a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination in hiring and promotional practices. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of UTPB. Olien subsequently filed motions to vacate or for a new trial, asserting she did not receive proper notice of the summary judgment hearing. The trial court denied these motions. The Court of Appeals found that the clerk failed to properly serve notice of the hearing to Olien's counsel, placing it instead in a personal folder at the courthouse, which was not compliant with procedural rules. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying Olien's motion for a new trial due to lack of notice, as it deprived her of due process. The judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded.

gender discriminationsummary judgmentmotion for new trialdue processnotice requirementsabuse of discretionprocedural errorTexas Rules of Civil Procedureappellate reviewdefault judgment
References
12
Case No. 2015-03-0506
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2017

Diana, Annicia v. ABM Industries, Inc.

Ms. Annicia C. Diana sustained a crush injury to her left wrist while working as a sanitation worker for ABM Industries, Inc. The core legal issue revolved around the causal relationship between Ms. Diana's radial nerve palsy and the work injury, along with the medical necessity of additional diagnostic testing, specifically an EMG/NCS. The authorized treating physician, Dr. John M. Ambrosia, could not establish a direct link between Ms. Diana's radial nerve palsy and her work injury, and his opinion was presumed correct under Tennessee law. Ms. Diana failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut Dr. Ambrosia's findings. Consequently, the Court denied her request for additional medical benefits and the recommended nerve tests.

Workers' Compensation JudgeExpedited HearingMedical Benefits DenialRadial Nerve PalsyCausal RelationshipMedical NecessityDiagnostic TestingTreating Physician OpinionPresumption of CorrectnessBurden of Proof
References
3
Case No. 01-08-01027-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2010

Diana G. Offord, as Guardian of the Estate of Winter Gordon, Jr., A/K/A Winter Gordon Sr. v. West Houston Trees, L.L.P.

This case concerns Diana G. Offord's appeal, as guardian of Winter Gordon, Jr., seeking to overturn a default judgment against Gordon via a bill of review. Offord argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against her, claiming Gordon was not properly served and was mentally incompetent during the original proceedings. The Court of Appeals, First District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found no evidence to dispute that Gordon was served with the petition and trial notice. Furthermore, Offord's evidence of Gordon's mental incapacity was deemed too remote in time to establish incompetence at the time of service, failing to overcome the legal presumption of competence.

Bill of ReviewSummary JudgmentDue ProcessMental IncapacityService of ProcessDefault JudgmentGuardianshipAppellate ReviewTexas LawEvidence Admissibility
References
28
Case No. 05-20-00936-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2022

Diana Convenience, LLC, HQ Food, Inc., Hajar Convenience, LLC, Shark Phones, LLC, and AMK Convenience, LLC v. Dollar ATM, LLC

The Fifth District Court of Appeals of Texas at Dallas affirmed in part and vacated in part the judgment from Collin County. Appellants, Diana Convenience, LLC, et al., appealed a judgment awarding damages to Dollar ATM, LLC for breach of contract, specifically challenging pre-trial orders imposing discovery sanctions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's "death penalty sanctions" against the appellants, finding that their repeated failure to comply with discovery requests and resistance to providing material evidence justified the severe sanctions, establishing that the signatories had authority and prohibiting them from contesting ATM revenue. However, the court vacated a prior award of $1,050 in attorney's fees, ruling it was not supported by legally sufficient evidence of reasonableness.

Discovery SanctionsBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessTexas Civil ProcedureMemorandum OpinionDeath Penalty SanctionsMotion to Compel
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 130 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