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. 13-00-342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

R & R Contractors and R & R Field Services, Inc. v. Mary Torres

This case involves an appeal from the Thirteenth District of Texas, Corpus Christi, regarding a wrongful death action. Gregorio Torres, Jr., an employee of R&R Contractors and R&R Oilfield Services, Inc., died after a thousand-pound tank fell on him during unloading operations. His surviving spouse and children filed a gross negligence suit under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, and a jury awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, R&R raised two issues: the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for exemplary damages. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred by using a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, citing changes from the 1995 tort reform legislation. However, the court found the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of gross negligence against both the employee-operator and the corporation, based on extreme risk and conscious indifference to safety. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and remanded for further proceedings due to the incorrect standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceLegal SufficiencyCrane Operation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R & R CONTRACTORS v. Torres

This case involves an appeal by R & R Contractors and R & R Oilfield Services, Inc. (appellant) against the judgment favoring the widow and children of Gregorio Torres, Jr. (appellees), a truck driver who died in a workplace accident. The jury had found R & R grossly negligent and awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. The appeal raised two issues: legal sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a "clear and convincing evidence" standard for gross negligence. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by applying the "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which was legally required. Despite finding reversible error, the court also reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and concluded there was sufficient evidence to uphold the finding. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesLegal SufficiencyStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceStatutory Construction
References
35
Case No. 01-19-00335-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2021

Alice Marie Gandy v. Robert Williamson, Estate of Jimmy Glenn Williamson, Jimmy Williamson, P.C., Williamson & Rusnak, Cyndi Rusnak, and Cyndi Rusnak, PLLC

Appellants, 135 individuals, challenged the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of appellees, including Robert Williamson and several law firms. Appellants' lawsuit alleged civil barratry, civil conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and breach of fiduciary duty, stemming from an alleged illicit scheme to solicit clients for Deepwater Horizon oil spill claims. The scheme involved lawyers Jimmy Williamson, Cyndi Rusnak, and Michael Pohl paying non-lawyers to recruit potential clients using a

Barratry SchemeDeepwater Horizon Oil Spill LitigationStatute of Limitations DefenseCivil Conspiracy ClaimsAiding and AbettingBreach of Fiduciary DutyAttorney MisconductImproper Client SolicitationLegal EthicsSummary Judgment Appeal
References
64
Case No. 03-08-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2010

Ronald R. Wagner v. Roberto D'Lorm and Edward P. Dancause

Appellant Ronald R. Wagner sued appellees Roberto D'Lorm and his attorney Edward P. Dancause in Travis County district court, seeking a declaration that a default judgment previously obtained against him in Zapata County was void due to the Zapata County court's lack of personal jurisdiction over Wagner. The Travis County trial court granted D'Lorm's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to declare another district court's judgment void, and denied Wagner's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Wagner contended the trial court erred by not recognizing that a void judgment is subject to collateral attack in a court of equal jurisdiction. The appellate court held that a co-equal court indeed has subject-matter jurisdiction to declare a void judgment from another court to be void. It found Wagner's pleadings sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's dismissal order, and remanded the cause for further proceedings, without addressing the denial of summary judgment.

Collateral AttackVoid JudgmentSubject-Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionDefault JudgmentPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureLack of Service
References
26
Case No. 03-11-00066-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2012

M. Lawrence Naumann and Naumann Farm, LLC v. Edward R. Lee and Wife, Josephine R. Lee Edward J. Lee and Wife, Zenaida Lee Robert D. Norris and Wife, Dana K. Norris Diana Toler and Von Toler

M. Lawrence Naumann and Naumann Farm, LLC (Appellants) appealed a trial court's summary judgment in an easement dispute. The trial court had ruled that Naumann possessed only a limited easement to access a portion of his property, invalidating an easement for the remainder, and had also awarded attorney's fees to the appellees. Naumann challenged these decisions, arguing errors in the denial of their motion, the granting of appellees' cross-motion, the permanent injunction, and the attorney's fee award. The Court of Appeals reviewed the judgment, including the application of the "strip and gore" doctrine, and affirmed the trial court's decision in its entirety. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in its declaratory summary judgment, the permanent injunction, or the award of attorney's fees to the appellees.

Easement disputeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewProperty lawStrip and gore doctrineDeed constructionDeclaratory reliefInjunctive reliefAttorney's feesTexas Court of Appeals
References
48
Case No. M2009-00813-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2010

Joseph Edward Rich, M.D. v. Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners

This is an administrative appeal concerning the suspension of Dr. Joseph Edward Rich's medical license by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners. The Board found Dr. Rich in violation of several provisions related to his use of chelation therapy, intravenous hydrogen peroxide therapy, and methadone. The chancery court affirmed the Board's decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the findings for Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(1), (4), and (12) due to the Board's failure to articulate the standard of care. However, the court affirmed violations of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(14), Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0880-2-.14(6)(c), Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0880-2-.14(6)(e)(3)(ii), and 21 U.S.C.A § 823(g)(1). The case was remanded for the Board to reconsider the sanctions.

Medical License SuspensionChelation TherapyMethadone TreatmentAdministrative LawStandard of CareDue ProcessEvidence ExclusionPhysician MisconductControlled SubstancesBoard of Medical Examiners
References
18
Case No. 01-21-00008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2024

Sealy Emergency Room, L.L.C. and Kannappan Krishnaswamy, M.D. v. Dr. Atul Dhingra, Dr. Swapan Dubey and Dr. Sanjeev Dubey

Appellants Sealy Emergency Room, L.L.C., and Dr. Kannappan Krishnaswamy appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellees Free Standing Emergency Room Managers of America, L.L.C., Dr. Atul Dhingra, Dr. Swapan Dubey, and Dr. Sanjeev Dubey. The dispute arose from a management agreement for an emergency room, with appellants bringing counterclaims and third-party claims for breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement, and negligence. After a previous dismissal for lack of appellate jurisdiction was reversed by the Texas Supreme Court, the First District of Texas Court of Appeals reviewed the merits. The court found that the appellants failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on any of their claims, concluding that the alleged breaches of contract were not supported by the agreement's plain language or that the best-efforts clause was unenforceable. Furthermore, claims of fraud and negligence were not substantiated or were barred by the economic loss rule. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Contract DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractFraudFraudulent InducementNegligenceEconomic Loss RuleTexas LawHealthcare Management
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malkiewicz v. R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co.

This memorandum addresses whether a guarantor of a self-insured employer's workers' compensation obligations is immune from liability under Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Law, similar to an insurer. Plaintiffs John Malkiewicz and Tim Lemons, along with their spouses, sued defendant R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Inc., the guarantor for its self-insured subsidiary Donnelley Printing Company, alleging negligence in providing safety services after they were injured. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that as a guarantor, R.R. Donnelley & Sons, Inc. is entitled to the same immunity as a workers' compensation insurer. This decision aims to encourage safety initiatives by guarantors without fear of increased liability and maintain an uninhibited choice between insured and self-insured status under state law.

Workers' Compensation ImmunitySelf-Insured EmployerGuarantor LiabilityParent-Subsidiary RelationshipNegligenceSafety ServicesStatutory InterpretationFirst ImpressionMotion to DismissTennessee Law
References
10
Case No. M2002-00791-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2003

Royal Insurance v. R & R Drywall and Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance

A workers' compensation insurance carrier, Royal Insurance Company, sought a retrospective premium increase from R & R Drywall, Inc., after an audit suggested the contractor's subcontractors employed more workers than initially declared. R & R Drywall contended these additional workers were partners, not employees, and thus not subject to its workers' compensation policy. While an administrative law judge initially sided with R & R, the Chancery Court reversed, ruling in favor of Royal Insurance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Chancery Court's decision, emphasizing that the insurance company bore the risk of liability for these workers during the policy period, and the contractor's attempts to reclassify them after the fact would undermine the purpose of workers' compensation law. The judgment of the Chancery Court was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceRetrospective PremiumSubcontractor LiabilityEmployee MisclassificationPartnership StatusAdministrative AppealChancery Court ReversalAppellate AffirmationRisk AssessmentWorkers' Compensation Law Purpose
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 4,381 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