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. 11-00-00086-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Manon v. Solis

The case involves Lorraine M. Mahon appealing a trial court's judgment in favor of Manuel E. Solis. The dispute stems from alleged fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations made by Solis during the recruitment of Mahon for an attorney position at his law firm. The Eleventh Court of Appeals had previously reversed a summary judgment in Solis's favor, remanding the case for trial. On remand, a jury found Mahon's allegations unfounded. Mahon raised seven issues on appeal, including claims of procedural establishment of claims, conclusive establishment of claims, errors in denying motions for JNOV and new trial, and errors regarding sealing records and sanctions. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no errors in denying Mahon's motions and concluding she failed to establish her claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or breach of fiduciary duty as a matter of law.

Employment disputeFraudulent misrepresentationNegligent misrepresentationBreach of fiduciary dutyAppellate reviewMotion for new trialJudgment notwithstanding the verdictJury verdictTrial court judgmentTexas law
References
28
Case No. 14-03-00463-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2004

Lorraine M. Manon v. Manuel E. Solis

Lorraine M. Mañon appealed a judgment in favor of Manuel E. Solis, stemming from a dispute over alleged fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations made during her recruitment for an attorney position. Mañon claimed Solis made misrepresentations regarding work conditions and firm practices. The trial court's initial summary judgment for Solis was reversed and remanded by the Eleventh Court of Appeals. On remand, a jury found Mañon's allegations unfounded. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mañon failed to conclusively establish her claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or breach of fiduciary duty. The court also found no error in the denial of her motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, and her claims regarding discovery, evidentiary rulings, sealing records, and sanctions were overruled.

FraudNegligent MisrepresentationBreach of Fiduciary DutyEmployment LawAppellate CourtJury VerdictCivil ProcedureJudicial EstoppelMotion for New TrialDiscovery Dispute
References
28
Case No. 13-15-00204-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2015

Brock Services, LLC F/K/A Miken Specialties, Ltd. v. Eduardo Solis

Brock Services, LLC appealed the denial of its motion to compel arbitration against former employee Eduardo Solis. Solis had sued Brock for wrongful termination, alleging he was fired in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Brock contended that a valid Dispute Resolution Agreement (DRA) existed, which mandated arbitration for employment-related disputes and stipulated that an arbitrator should determine issues of arbitrability. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the DRA constituted a valid and mutually binding agreement, clearly indicating the parties' intent to have an arbitrator decide arbitrability.

ArbitrationEmployment DisputeWrongful TerminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ClaimInterlocutory AppealMotion to CompelArbitration AgreementMutuality of ObligationArbitrability
References
18
Case No. 13-23-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2025

Esmeralda Gonzalez v. CS Auto, LTD and Loco Management Company, L.L.C.

Esmeralda Gonzalez sued CS Auto, LTD and LoCo Management Company, L.L.C. (South Texas Buick GMC) for the wrongful death of Leonzo Gonzalez, who contracted COVID-19 while employed by them. Esmeralda alleged premises liability, negligent conduct, general negligence, negligence per se, and wrongful death, claiming the company failed to implement safety protocols during the pandemic. The trial court dismissed her claims under the Texas Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA), finding her expert report insufficient to establish causation. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the expert report provided only speculative conclusions and failed to offer a factual and scientific basis for the assertion that the employer's actions caused Leonzo's COVID-19 infection and death, thus not satisfying the statutory requirements.

Pandemic Liability Protection Act (PLPA)COVID-19 LiabilityWrongful DeathExpert Report SufficiencyCausation in LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeEmployer NegligenceWorkplace ExposureMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. 08-23-00083-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2023

Esmeralda Dominguez and Miguel Dominguez A/N/F of Abraham Dominguez v. Socorro ISD

Esmeralda and Miguel Dominguez, individually and on behalf of their son Abraham Dominguez, appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to reinstate a personal injury lawsuit and its dismissal for want of prosecution. The dismissal stemmed from their attorney's failure to appear at two hearings. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the attorney's absence was due to a calendaring error, not intentional conduct or conscious indifference, a reasonable explanation that was uncontroverted. The court also confirmed its jurisdiction, affirming the proper verification of the motion to reinstate. The case is now remanded to the trial court for reinstatement.

Motion to ReinstateDismissal for Want of ProsecutionAttorney NegligenceCalendaring ErrorAbuse of DiscretionAppellate JurisdictionVerified MotionTexas Civil Procedure Rule 165aPersonal InjuryAutomobile Accident
References
21
Case No. ADJ10138647
Regular

CSMERALDA SOLIS vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Esmeralda Solis. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in their decision. Although the defendant requested trial transcripts, they did not allege any inaccuracies in the WCJ's prepared Minutes of Hearing and Summary of Evidence. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was denied.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJOpinion on DecisionMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceDENIEDSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDESMERALDA SOLIS
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Argee Corp. v. Solis

This case involves an appeal concerning a construction contract dispute between Argee Corporation, a general contractor, and Frank Solis d/b/a Allied Steel General Contractors, a subcontractor, over three prison projects in Texas. Both parties appealed various aspects of a jury verdict and the trial court's subsequent judgment, which addressed claims of breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and related damages. The appellate court modified the trial court's judgment by adjusting awarded damages, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees, specifically deleting an offset granted to Argee and increasing Solis's recovery for additional expenses and injury to credit reputation. It further remanded for new trials on Solis's claims for wrongful conversion of equipment and fraud related to the Woodville project. The court's decision also clarified the unenforceability of "no damages for delay" and wrongful termination clauses due to a lack of fair notice and conspicuousness under Texas law.

Construction ContractBreach of ContractSubcontractor DisputesContractual DamagesDelay DamagesConversion of EquipmentFraudulent InducementPrejudgment InterestAttorney FeesWaiver of Lien
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MALECHE v. Solis

Vincent Maleche, representing himself, sued Hilda Solis, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), following the denial of his Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) benefits after Hurricane Ike. Maleche, a self-employed resident of Galveston County, Texas, alleged denial of benefits and discrimination under the Stafford Act. His DUA application was initially denied by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), a decision upheld by the TWC’s Appeal Tribunal and the DOL’s Regional Administrator, citing his unavailability for work prior to the disaster. Judge Sim Lake granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Stafford Act's discretionary function exception, which shields discretionary agency eligibility determinations from judicial review. The court also found the DOL's decision was not arbitrary and dismissed the discrimination claims due to insufficient evidence.

Disaster Unemployment AssistanceStafford ActSovereign ImmunityJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentFederal CourtUnemployment BenefitsAdministrative LawDiscretionary Function ExceptionDiscrimination Claim
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Solis v. SCA Restaurant Corp.

The Secretary of Labor brought an action against SCA Restaurant Corporation and its owner, Luigi Quarta, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), including failure to pay minimum wage and overtime, inadequate record-keeping, and retaliation. After a bench trial, the court found the defendants liable on all claims, determining their violations were willful. The defendants paid fixed weekly salaries despite employees working over 40 hours, falsified records, and threatened employees for testifying. The court awarded $137,867.12 in unpaid wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages, and $2,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. A prospective injunction was also issued to prevent future FLSA violations.

FLSA ViolationsMinimum WageOvertime CompensationRecord Keeping ViolationsEmployee RetaliationWillful ViolationsUndocumented WorkersLiquidated DamagesCompensatory DamagesInjunctive Relief
References
87
Case No. ADJ1136971 (STK 0213325)
Regular
Apr 14, 2014

JAVIER SOLIS vs. AMERON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

This case concerns applicant Javier Solis' claim for psychiatric injury as a consequence of an admitted industrial injury. Defendant Ameron International Corporation sought to bar this claim, arguing it was untimely. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied defendant's petitions for reconsideration and removal. The WCAB held that applicant was not barred from bringing the psyche claim as it was a consequence of the original injury, and the defendant had prior notice and provided treatment for these symptoms. Furthermore, the WCAB affirmed the administrative law judge's order to develop the record on the psyche injury claim to ensure proper medical evidence.

compensable consequencepsyche injurystatute of limitationstollingsubstantial justiceprocedural backgroundpetition for reconsiderationpetition for removalDeclaration of Readiness to Proceedmandatory settlement conference
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 42 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