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

Bugge v. Sweet

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court in Otsego County which set aside a jury verdict in his favor for $10,000 and directed a verdict for the defendant. The case stemmed from a 1975 motor vehicle accident, with the central legal question being whether the plaintiff sustained a "serious injury" as defined by Insurance Law § 671(4) at the time. The appellate court reviewed the medical evidence presented, specifically the testimony of the plaintiff's doctor. The court found the doctor's testimony regarding the permanency and causal link of the injury to the accident to be burdened with doubt, speculation, and inconsistency. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the plaintiff failed, as a matter of law, to establish the "serious injury" threshold required for recovery. Therefore, the order and judgment in favor of the defendant were affirmed.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal InjurySerious Injury ThresholdInsurance LawSpinal FusionLumbo-sacral StrainCausationPermanencyMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trubell v. Patten

O. R. Trubell, a manufacturer, brought a legal malpractice suit against his former attorney, J. W. Patten, after Trubell was forced to pay $35,000 in excess of his insurance policy limits to settle a personal injury lawsuit. Patten had been retained by Trubell's insurer, Aetna, to defend Trubell in the original personal injury case. Trubell alleged Patten's negligence included failing to know policy limits, failing to respond to settlement offers, and not adequately advising him. The trial court issued a directed verdict for Patten, excluding expert testimony from Trubell's proposed witness, Joe Steelman, due to Trubell's failure to supplement interrogatory answers regarding expert witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in excluding Steelman's expert testimony, which was crucial for Trubell's negligence claim.

Legal MalpracticeExpert WitnessDiscovery Rule ViolationDirected VerdictAbuse of DiscretionAttorney NegligenceSettlement NegotiationsRule 168 T.R.C.P.Duty to SupplementTexas Civil Procedure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwab v. International Ass'n of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Iron Workers, Local No. 782

The plaintiff, Lawrence J. Schwab, sued the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 782, and Wayne Larrison for malicious interference with his employment, which led to his discharge. The Trial Judge directed a verdict for the International, but the jury found against Local 782 and Larrison, awarding $35,000, which was later remitted to $25,000. On appeal, Local 782 contested the sufficiency of evidence and the verdict's excessiveness, while Schwab appealed the directed verdict, exclusion of testimony, and the remittitur. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ample material evidence for malicious interference by the Local, upholding the remitted damages, and concluding there was no error in the directed verdict for the International.

Malicious InterferenceWrongful DischargeLabor LawUnion ConductPunitive DamagesRemittiturAppellate ReviewMeasure of DamagesTort LawEmployment Rights
References
21
Case No. 3-92-554-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1994

Genell Brandon and Earl H. Staelin v. American Sterilizer Company

Genell Brandon sued American Sterilizer Company (AMSCO) for personal injuries from toxic chemical exposure, alleging product liability, deceptive trade practices, breach of warranty, negligence, and gross negligence. The trial court directed a verdict for AMSCO on DTPA and express warranty claims, but Brandon won on negligence and product liability. Brandon appealed the directed verdict, 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 judgment regarding the directed verdict, the credit to AMSCO, and the allocation of attorney's fees. However, the judgment was reformed to award prejudgment interest to Brandon for the period between the date of verdict and the date of judgment.

Product LiabilityNegligenceDeceptive Trade PracticesExpress WarrantyWorkers' Compensation LienPrejudgment InterestAttorney FeesSubrogationToxic ExposureChemical Injuries
References
29
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

Crown Central Petroleum Corp. v. Coastal Transport Co.

Crown Central Petroleum Corporation appealed an unfavorable judgment in a negligence and gross negligence action stemming from an explosion and fire at its Pasadena, Texas facility. The incident occurred when a trailer owned by Coastal Transport Company, Inc. overfilled, spilling gasoline which was ignited by a trailer owned by Brenco Marketing Corporation. The trial court had granted directed verdicts in favor of Brenco on negligence and Coastal on exemplary damages, and the jury found Crown Central's injury to be temporary, leading to a 'take nothing' judgment due to prior settlement. The appellate court affirmed the directed verdict for Brenco and the jury's finding of temporary injury, but reversed and remanded the directed verdict for Coastal on gross negligence, finding sufficient evidence to raise a fact issue for trial.

NegligenceGross NegligenceDirected VerdictProximate CauseForeseeabilityDamages AssessmentTemporary InjuryPermanent InjuryExemplary DamagesExpert Testimony
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keyes Helium Company v. Regency Gas Services, L.P.

Keyes Helium Company sued Regency Gas Services for breach of contract, alleging Regency failed to act in good faith by shutting down its Lakin Plant, which supplied crude helium to Keyes. Keyes also claimed unreasonable variation and failure to use best efforts under their crude helium supply contract. The jury found in favor of Regency, concluding it did not breach the contract. The trial court also directed verdicts for Regency on the unreasonable variation and best efforts claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instruction on good faith, upholding the directed verdict on the unreasonable variation claim, and affirming the directed verdict on the best efforts claim, noting the obligation was not on Regency under this specific contract.

Uniform Commercial CodeOutput contractRequirements contractGood faith obligationBreach of contractDirected verdictJury instructionsCommercial standardsLegitimate business reasonUnreasonable variation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 1988

Petterson v. Museum Tower Corp.

Mr. Martin Petterson, a machinist mover, was severely injured in a construction accident on August 24, 1981, at the Museum Tower construction site when he fell through an uncovered opening. He subsequently sued the owner, Museum Tower Corp., and the general contractor, Leon D. DeMatteis Construction Corp., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. The trial court initially granted Petterson a directed verdict on liability. However, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, reversed this judgment, vacated the directed verdict, denied Petterson's motion, and remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of liability. The reversal was based on the existence of a triable issue of fact concerning whether a protective barricade was in place at the time of the accident, despite a dissenting opinion advocating for the affirmation of the directed verdict.

Construction AccidentLabor LawDirected VerdictLiabilityWorkplace SafetyFall From HeightBuilding ErectionGeneral ContractorProperty OwnerSubcontractor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2009

STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT v. Martinez

This is a workers’ compensation case where the State Office of Risk Management appealed a trial court’s pre-trial directed verdict in favor of Edna A. Martinez, an employee of the Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services. Martinez sustained injuries while working from home and her workers' compensation claim was initially denied. The appeals panel sided with Martinez, leading the State Office of Risk Management to seek judicial review. The trial court granted a pre-trial directed verdict for Martinez. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in granting the pre-trial directed verdict because it prematurely denied the State Office of Risk Management the right to present evidence and cross-examine Martinez. The court also determined that the "Downs waiver" argument, used by Martinez, was no longer viable. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDirected VerdictSummary JudgmentCourse and Scope of EmploymentPremature RulingEvidentiary StandardsAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeDowns WaiverCredibility of Witness
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,951 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