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. PD-1500-15
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2015

Wright, Laci Rena

This document is the State of Texas's petition for discretionary review to the Court of Criminal Appeals, challenging the Eleventh Court of Appeals' decision to reverse Laci Rena Wright's convictions. Wright was convicted of two counts of injury to a child by omission for failing to provide medical care to her four-year-old daughter, B.R., after B.R. was sexually assaulted by Wright's boyfriend. The State argues that the Court of Appeals misapplied the legal sufficiency standard and that ample evidence supported the jury's finding that Wright recklessly caused serious mental impairment or injury to B.R. by consciously disregarding the risk of her inaction. The petition requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to reverse the Court of Appeals' ruling and reinstate Wright's conviction for recklessly causing serious mental injury.

Child InjuryChild OmissionSexual AssaultRecklessnessMental ImpairmentLegal SufficiencyAppellate ReviewCausationMedical NeglectPTSD
References
29
Case No. PD-0758-15
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

Morgan, Dewan

Regina Raglin invited her boyfriend, Dewan Morgan (Appellee), to live with her. She paid rent, and he contributed to household expenses. They had an argument, and fearing Appellee, Regina invited a male friend over. Upon Appellee's return, he saw the friend, and Regina locked a deadbolt, making his key useless. Appellee pounded on the door, rang the doorbell, yelled, shattered a kitchen window, and ultimately kicked down the door. He then assaulted Regina. A jury convicted Appellee of burglary of a habitation, and he was sentenced to 12 years. The Second Court of Appeals reversed the burglary conviction, affirmed a lesser included assault, and remanded for new punishment proceedings. The State now petitions for discretionary review, arguing that trial and appellate courts should primarily use the Penal Code's definition of 'owner' rather than property law principles. The State also seeks clarification on how much time must elapse after a victim revokes consent for a live-in partner's entry for it to be considered a burglary.

Burglary of HabitationProperty LawPenal CodeConsent to EnterCo-tenancyDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceLesser-Included OffenseTexas Criminal Appeals
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borgen v. State

The appellant, Borgen, was convicted of sexual abuse, a conviction that the Houston Court of Appeals subsequently reversed due to unobjected-to improper prosecutorial jury argument during the guilt phase of the trial. The State filed a petition for discretionary review, contending that the appellant waived any impropriety by failing to object at trial. This court considered whether the prosecutor's argument was so prejudicial that it constituted reversible error despite the lack of objection or if due process was violated. The court concluded that while the argument was improper, it was not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal without an objection, distinguishing it from cases where an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for consideration of other grounds of error.

Prosecutorial MisconductJury ArgumentWaiver of ErrorDue ProcessSexual AbuseCriminal LawAppellate ReviewDiscretionary ReviewTexas Court of Criminal AppealsHarmful Error
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ellis v. State

Appellant pleaded guilty to drug delivery and was sentenced to ten years' incarceration. On direct appeal, appellant alleged errors in probation law information during the trial and jury charge, which were unobjected to, leading to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. This court granted discretionary review, finding significant errors in the jury charge regarding probation conditions, specifically omissions of possible conditions and an incorrect limitation on the judge's discretion. These errors were exacerbated by conflicting testimony from the Chief Probation Officer and misleading arguments by both attorneys. Given the appellant's strong candidacy for probation, the erroneous information in the jury charge and during trial denied him a fair trial. Consequently, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.

Probation ConditionsJury Charge ErrorsIneffective Assistance of CounselDiscretionary ReviewCriminal ProcedureFair TrialSentencingDrug OffenseTexas Criminal LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. PD-1050-14
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2015

Martin, Peter James

Peter James Martin, proceeding pro-se, filed a motion for rehearing following the denial of his petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on February 4, 2015. Martin was convicted of aggravated assault against a public servant, evading arrest, altering/destroying evidence, and possession of a controlled substance. His motion primarily argues for legally insufficient evidence of intent, knowledge, and causation regarding the aggravated assault charge, citing the deputy's alleged actions of running into the path of Martin's car, thus causing the 'threat' himself. Additionally, Martin contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to issues with chosen counsel and the unconstitutional abortion of a plea bargain process, where a judge's comments allegedly coerced him into waiving his right to chosen counsel and rejecting a 35-year plea offer unknowingly. The motion also details procedural issues regarding the confiscation of his legal documents by prison officials, which he claims hindered his ability to file a meritorious petition.

Criminal LawAggravated Assault Public ServantEvading ArrestLegal Insufficiency EvidenceConcurrent CausationRight to CounselPlea BargainIneffective Assistance of CounselDue ProcessFourth Amendment
References
39
Case No. M2004-00846-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2005

State of Tennessee v. Wanda Dean Wallace

The State of Tennessee appealed the assessment of discretionary costs in an eminent domain action against property owner Wanda Dean Wallace. The Circuit Court had awarded Wallace discretionary costs after a jury found her entitled to damages exceeding the State's initial tender. The State argued its exemption from such costs in eminent domain cases. The Court of Appeals agreed, concluding that a 1994 amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-17-812 removed the express statutory authority to assess discretionary costs against the State. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Circuit Court's judgment and vacated the $5,650 award of discretionary costs against the State.

eminent domaindiscretionary costsstatutory interpretationappealTennessee lawgovernmental immunitysovereigntyexpert witness feesappraisal feesrule of civil procedure
References
22
Case No. 2014-07-0013 / 79380-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2016

Garassino, Louis v. Western Express, Inc.

The employee, Louis Garassino, sought permanent disability benefits for a work-related back injury. The trial court initially awarded benefits based on his medical expert's impairment rating and included discretionary costs for the expert's examination fees. The employer, Western Express, Inc., appealed the award of these discretionary costs, arguing they were not recoverable under Tennessee law. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the case, finding that the trial court erred in granting the medical expert's examination and record review fees as discretionary costs. Consequently, the Appeals Board affirmed the compensation order in part, but reversed and modified the portion related to the disputed discretionary costs, certifying the modified order as final.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Disability BenefitsDiscretionary CostsMedical Expert FeesImpairment RatingAppeals Board DecisionTrial Court ErrorStatutory InterpretationRules of Civil ProcedureTimeliness of Appeal
References
6
Case No. 01S01-9708-BC-00173
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1998

Billy R. Phillips v. Tennessee Technological University, State of Tennessee

This case addresses whether the State of Tennessee may be held liable for discretionary costs in a workers' compensation claim. Plaintiff Billy R. Phillips sustained a work-related injury and sought to recover discretionary costs, including a treating physician's fee, court reporter costs, and a vocational disability expert's fee. The Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled that the State is only liable for costs expressly permitted by statute, specifically allowing the treating physician's fee under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-226(c)(1) as an exception to the general prohibition against taxing discretionary costs against the State found in Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(d). The Court affirmed the claims commission's judgment denying other discretionary costs, while upholding the modified disability award of thirty-seven percent to the body as a whole.

Discretionary CostsState LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActClaims Commission StatuteStatutory InterpretationCourt CostsTreating Physician FeesVocational Disability ExpertRule 54.04Tennessee Supreme Court
References
5
Case No. M2011-01165-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2012

Shandra Kay Hattaway v. Kevin Todd Hattaway

This divorce appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumner County saw the Husband challenge the trial court's division of marital property, alimony award, permanent parenting plan, discretionary costs, and attorney fees. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee found that the trial court erred in awarding excessive rehabilitative alimony, limiting the Husband's parenting time to 28 days a year, and granting discretionary costs for expert fees. The appellate court affirmed the remaining aspects of the trial court's decision, vacating and remanding for recalculation of alimony and a new parenting schedule, along with related child support adjustments. The award of discretionary costs for an expert who did not testify was reversed.

DivorceMarital PropertyAlimonyChild CustodyParenting TimeAttorney FeesDiscretionary CostsAppellate ReviewEquitable DistributionSpousal Support
References
19
Case No. 2015-08-0169
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2016

Perry, Bryant C. v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water

Bryant C. Perry, an employee of Memphis Light, Gas & Water (MLGW), sought permanent partial disability benefits and discretionary costs after sustaining a groin and right hip injury at work. The central legal issues were Mr. Perry's entitlement to benefits and the employer's responsibility for attorney's discretionary costs. The Court granted Mr. Perry's requests, finding he established his entitlement by a preponderance of the evidence. Specifically, the Court found a five percent permanent impairment to the body due to a hernia injury, rebutting the treating physician's opinion. Mr. Perry was awarded $14,131.80 in permanent partial disability benefits and $1,446.85 for discretionary costs.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityHernia InjuryHip StrainMedical Impairment RatingDiscretionary CostsAttorney FeesTreating Physician PresumptionIndependent Medical ExaminationTennessee Workers' Compensation Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 342 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