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

Commonwealth Lloyds Insurance Co. v. Downs

H. Edward Downs sued Commonwealth Lloyds Insurance Company after his casualty insurance claim was rejected. Downs' covered horse arena collapsed due to accumulated ice during a severe winter storm. Downs argued that 'sleet' or 'ice pellets' causing the collapse should be covered under the policy's 'hail' provision, while the insurer maintained it was not a covered peril. The jury initially found in favor of Downs on multiple claims, including breach of contract and violations of the Texas Insurance Code and DTPA. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the property damage was not covered under the insurance policy and therefore, claims of unfair practices or breach of good faith and fair dealing were also not supported. A take-nothing judgment was rendered for Commonwealth.

Insurance Policy DisputeCasualty InsuranceProperty Damage ClaimPolicy CoveragePerils Insured AgainstHail vs. SleetContract InterpretationBreach of ContractTexas Insurance Code ViolationsDeceptive Trade Practices
References
17
Case No. 2-05-303-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2006

Sally Downs v. Triad-Denton Hospital, L.P. D/B/A Denton Community Hospital

Sally Downs, a licensed vocational nurse employed by Advantage Nursing Services, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping and falling on a wet floor at Triad-Denton Hospital, where she was temporarily assigned. Downs received workers' compensation benefits through her employer's policy. She subsequently sued the Hospital for her injuries. The Hospital moved for summary judgment, asserting the affirmative defense of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy provision, arguing Downs was a borrowed servant. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hospital. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case, holding that the trial court erred because the Hospital failed to specially plead the affirmative defense as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 94, and Downs had properly objected to this omission.

Workers' CompensationBorrowed Servant DoctrineSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseExclusive RemedyTexas Labor CodeAppellate ProcedureProcedural ErrorPersonal InjuryPremises Liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Porter v. Downing

This is an appeal regarding a suit for common law damages for personal injuries resulting from an intentional assault and battery. The incident occurred at Holiday Lodge Nursing Home in Longview, involving employees Porter, Cooper (appellants), and Downing (appellee). The employer was a subscriber to the Worker's Compensation Act, but Downing did not claim benefits. The central issue was whether an employee can pursue common law damages for an intentional injury, despite the employer being a worker's compensation subscriber, when no worker's compensation claim was filed. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Worker's Compensation Act does not abolish common law rights for intentionally inflicted injuries, which are protected by the Texas Constitution. However, it noted that claiming or accepting worker's compensation benefits would estop an employee from pursuing an intentional tort claim.

Worker's Compensation ExemptionIntentional TortAssault and BatteryCommon Law RemedyTexas ConstitutionCo-employee LiabilityElection of RemediesPersonal Injury DamagesEmployer SubscriberAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 14-09-00718-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2011

Deborah Downing v. Don Burns and Sherry Burns

Deborah Downing sued Don and Sherry Burns for tortious interference and defamation after they alleged she stole trade secrets and threatened to sue her new employers. Downing, previously an assistant to Don Burns, copied parts of a policy manual she authored before resigning. The Burnses countersued for theft of trade secrets. A jury found in Downing's favor on all claims, but the trial court entered judgment only on tortious interference and theft. The appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the Burnses did not conclusively prove theft of trade secrets and that sufficient evidence supported the defamation and tortious interference findings, but the damages for tortious interference were unsupported. The case was remanded for a new trial due to the intertwined nature of the claims.

Tortious InterferenceDefamationTheft of Trade SecretsLost WagesEconomic DamagesLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictRemandAppellate ReviewRealty Business
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Co. v. Downs

This case from the Supreme Court of Texas interprets the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, specifically sections 409.021 and 409.022. The core issue is when a workers’ compensation carrier must notify a claimant of its refusal to pay benefits. Petitioner Continental Casualty Company failed to notify Respondent Mary Ann Downs within the statutory seven-day period after receiving notice of her husband's fatal heart attack claim, instead waiting forty-eight days to dispute compensability. The Court held that a carrier must either initiate benefit payments or send a written notice of refusal within seven days of injury notice to subsequently contest compensability. Failure to meet this deadline means the carrier cannot avail itself of the sixty-day investigation period. Consequently, the Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment in favor of Downs, precluding Continental from contesting compensability.

Workers' Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationTexas Supreme CourtInsurance CarrierClaim DenialNotice RequirementsTimelinessAppellate LawLabor LawLegislative Intent
References
11
Case No. NO. 3-92-393-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1993

Albertson's, Inc. v. United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO, Barbara Ritter, Rachel Ortiz, John Downes and Charles Race

Albertson's, Inc. appealed an adverse judgment awarding damages to Rachel Ortiz and John Downes following a jury verdict. The central legal question was whether the Texas Constitution's bill of rights independently creates a cause of action for damages against a private entity for infringing free-speech rights. Ortiz and Downes, supporters of the United Farm Workers, were arrested for distributing leaflets at an Albertson's store, leading to a lawsuit claiming denial of constitutional rights among other torts. The trial court found Albertson's interfered with their free speech and awarded damages. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the Texas Constitution does not imply a private cause of action for damages against a private entity for such infringements, especially in the absence of a statutory remedy comparable to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Texas ConstitutionFree Speech RightsPrivate Entity LiabilityDamages ClaimNational Labor Relations Act PreemptionAgricultural Laborers ExemptionConstitutional TortBivens ActionAppellate ReviewReversed Judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tennessee Downs, Inc. v. Gibbons

This case involves an appeal by William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, against a decision by the Chancery Court of Shelby County. Plaintiff Tennessee Downs, Inc. sought a declaration under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing was legal in Tennessee and a permanent injunction against General Gibbons prosecuting them. The Chancery Court found it had jurisdiction under § 1983 and enjoined Gibbons from interfering with the plaintiff's liberty and property rights, stating that the need for a license was suspended. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not bestow jurisdiction on Tennessee courts of equity to enjoin threatened criminal proceedings, and such jurisdiction remains fixed by state law, which prohibits equity courts from enjoining criminal law enforcement. Consequently, the case was dismissed, and the injunction dissolved.

Pari-mutuel wageringhorse racinganti-gambling statutes42 U.S.C. § 1983injunctive reliefchancery court jurisdictioncriminal prosecutionfederalismstate court jurisdictionproperty rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. 14-03-00629-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2004

Trinity Universal Insurance Company v. Yolanda Berryhill

This case involves an appeal by Trinity Universal Insurance Company ('Trinity') from a judgment in favor of Yolanda Berryhill ('Berryhill') in a workers' compensation dispute. Trinity sought judicial review of a commission decision awarding benefits to Berryhill. The core issue was whether Trinity waived its right to contest the compensability of Berryhill's injury by failing to file its notice of refusal within seven days of receiving her injury notice, as per the Continental Casualty Co. v. Downs ruling. The trial court granted Berryhill's motion for partial summary judgment on this waiver issue. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that the 'Downs waiver' issue could not be raised for the first time during judicial review, as it was not decided by the commission appeals panel, and the Act contains no 'good cause' exception for introducing new issues at this stage.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewWaiverCompensabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationLabour LawTimely NoticeInsurance Carrier
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albertson's, Inc. v. Ortiz

Albertson's Inc. appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to Rachel Ortiz and John Downes, volunteer supporters of the United Farm Workers (UFW), who were arrested for leafleting at an Albertson's store in Austin. Ortiz and Downes sued Albertson's for the denial of their individual rights under the Texas Constitution. The central issue was whether the Texas Constitution's bill of rights is self-executing, creating a cause of action for damages against a private entity for infringing free-speech rights. The appellate court concluded that the Texas Constitution does not create such a tort action against private entities, distinguishing it from federal statutes like 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which applies to state actors. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a judgment that Ortiz and Downes take nothing.

Free SpeechTexas Constitution Article I Section 8Constitutional DamagesPrivate Actor LiabilityNLRA PreemptionAgricultural WorkersJudicial Self-ExecutionAppellate ReversalCivil Rights ClaimRetail Solicitation
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 711 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