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. 04-23-00062-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2024

Enrique Orta, III, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Enrique Orta, II, Ramona E. Moreno and Sabrina Orta v. SN Operating, LLC and Patco Wireline Services, LLC

This negligence case arises from the death of Enrique Orta, II, who allegedly suffered a fatal heat stroke while working for the appellees. Appellants, Orta's survivors, sued SN Operating, LLC and Patco Wireline Services, LLC, alleging negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees, citing a lack of evidence for proximate causation, specifically the necessity of medical expert testimony. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that the symptoms and effects of heat stroke are not within the common knowledge of laypersons, thereby requiring expert medical testimony. Furthermore, the court found the appellants' proposed workplace safety engineer was not qualified to render a medical opinion on causation.

NegligenceWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentProximate CauseMedical Expert TestimonyHeat StrokeWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewTexas LawCausation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Enrique R.

The appellate court addressed whether the Family Court had the statutory authority to compel the Commissioner of Social Services to initiate a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York City Housing Authority to secure adequate housing. This was to facilitate the placement of a seven-year-old child, Enrique R., from foster care into the custody of his paternal grandmother, Gladys Torres, who was willing to assume permanent care but lived in inadequate housing conditions due to bureaucratic failures by the Housing Authority. While acknowledging the grandmother's plight and the Housing Authority's inaction, the court ruled that Family Court Act § 255, concerning "Cooperation of officials and organizations," does not empower the Family Court to direct a city official to undertake legal action as counsel for private indigent parties against another governmental entity. Consequently, the Family Court's order was modified to delete the specific directive for the Commissioner to commence legal proceedings, but otherwise affirmed the extension of foster care placement and the general directive for assistance in obtaining housing.

Family Court JurisdictionSocial Services LawHousing AuthorityFoster CareChild CustodyArticle 78 ProceedingGovernmental DiscretionIndigent PartiesLegal RepresentationStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 01-11-00234-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

the City of Houston v. Enrique Guzman

The City of Houston appealed an interlocutory order denying its plea to the jurisdiction against Enrique Guzman's negligence claims. Guzman had initially sued both the City and its employee, Brent Foltz, after a Houston Police Department patrol car driven by Foltz collided with Guzman's vehicle. Guzman's employer, Harris County, also intervened for subrogated interests, seeking to recover benefits and expenses. The City contended that Guzman's claims were barred by section 101.106(b) of the Texas Tort Claims Act because he initially sued both the governmental unit and its employee. The Court of Appeals, citing its own jurisprudence in similar cases, affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea, holding that section 101.106(b) did not bar the suit against the governmental unit under these circumstances.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to JurisdictionTexas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityNegligence ClaimsElection of RemediesSovereign ImmunitySubrogationWorkers' Compensation ProviderPolice Misconduct
References
10
Case No. 04-25-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company v. Javier A. Libson, Nosbil, Inc., Jose Luis Ramirez, Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company

Appellants Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company appealed a no-evidence summary judgment. Cantu's claims of negligence per se, negligent hiring, training, retention, and negligent entrustment were affirmed. However, the summary judgment for Cantu's ordinary negligence claims was reversed and remanded. Additionally, the judgment favoring the insurance defendants (Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company) was also reversed, as their motion for summary judgment was not properly heard. The case involved a collision between Cantu and Jose Luis Ramirez, an employee of Nosbil, Inc., in foggy conditions, leading to Cantu suing for negligence and insurance claims.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseDuty of CareBreach of DutyCausationInsurance ClaimsVicarious Liability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levinge Corp. v. Ledezma

This is an appeal from a judgment awarding damages based on negligence under the Texas Survival Statute and Wrongful Death Act following the death of Enrique Ledezma. Enrique was fatally injured on March 5, 1984, while working as a construction laborer when a truck, driven by appellant Hilliard and leased by appellant Levinge, suddenly accelerated, causing him and framed wood walls to fall off. Appellants challenged the damages awarded for future contributions to his mother, conscious pain and suffering, and parental mental anguish and loss of society. The court largely affirmed the trial court's findings on these points, including the admissibility and weight of expert testimony regarding Enrique's potential future contributions and evidence of conscious pain. However, the court reformed the judgment by deleting separate awards for 'grief and bereavement,' finding no legal or factual basis for distinct recovery from mental anguish.

Wrongful DeathTexas Survival StatuteNegligenceDamages AwardExpert Witness TestimonyFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyConscious Pain and SufferingMental AnguishLoss of Society
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06471 [188 AD3d 507]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Sunun v. Klein

Plaintiff Enrique Sunun was injured when he stepped into an unguarded, improperly backfilled trench at a construction site, causing his leg to sink deeply. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order regarding several Labor Law and negligence claims. The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, as no safety devices were provided to protect him from the gravity-related risk. Additionally, the court granted Beth Klein unconditional contractual indemnification from Cedar Design, Inc., and Fountainhead Construction Inc. conditional indemnification, while denying Fountainhead's motion to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against it. The hazardous condition of the trench, exacerbated by rainfall, was central to the claims.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationTrench CollapseConstruction AccidentGravity-Related RiskIndustrial Code ViolationsCommon-Law NegligenceAppellate DivisionThird-Party Claims
References
5
Case No. ADJ8195644, ADJ8195735, ADJ8195670
Regular
May 03, 2018

ENRIQUE CASTRO vs. CITY OF GLENDALE

This case involves the City of Glendale's petition for reconsideration of workers' compensation awards for firefighter Enrique Castro. The appeals board granted reconsideration to amend the award for injuries sustained on October 23, 2008 (ADJ8195735), specifically reducing the permanent disability from the inclusion of a right ankle injury. The WCAB affirmed the WCJ's findings for the cardiovascular and GERD claims from 2009-2010 (ADJ8195644) and the July 20, 2009 heart injury (ADJ8195670). The decision ultimately modifies the permanent disability award for ADJ8195735 to 23% without the right ankle contribution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWhole Person ImpairmentCardiovascular DiseaseGERDRight Ankle InjuryFire FighterPermanent DisabilityDisability Indemnity
References
3
Case No. ADJ4283361 (SJO 0226519) ADJ1587459 (SJO 0223560)
Regular
Apr 19, 2010

ENRIQUE FEREGRINO vs. SANMINA SCI CORPORATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to the State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF) regarding a disallowed lien. SCIF had paid benefits to the applicant after the primary employer's insurer became insolvent, but the WCJ initially denied SCIF's lien for lack of proof of reasonableness and failure to file a formal petition for contribution. The Board found that SCIF did present sufficient evidence of reasonableness and that the failure to file a formal petition should not bar its claim. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSanmina SCI CorporationState Compensation Insurance FundEnrique Feregrinolien claimpetition for reimbursementquasi-contributionreasonableness of paymentsvocational rehabilitation benefitstemporary disability indemnity
References
7
Case No. 2020-02-0367
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2021

Deaguila, Enrique v. Pods Enterprises, LLC

Enrique Deaguila, a delivery driver for PODS, suffered a right knee and arm injury after a fall in 2019, exacerbating pre-existing conditions. He sought additional medical and temporary disability benefits for his knee, shoulder, and a wrist/CMC joint injury. The Court found him likely to succeed on his knee and CMC joint claims, ordering PODS to provide ongoing medical treatment and authorize surgery by Dr. Lord, as well as pay past and ongoing temporary partial disability benefits. However, the Court denied additional medical benefits for his shoulder and attorney fees at this expedited hearing stage, noting that attorney fees could be reconsidered later.

Expedited HearingWorkers' Compensation BenefitsKnee Injury AggravationCMC Joint ArthritisShoulder Injury DenialTemporary Partial DisabilityMedical Treatment AuthorizationPre-existing ConditionCausation DisputeIndependent Medical Evaluations
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02379
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2017

Bayona v. Hertz Corp.

Plaintiff Enrique Bayona, an employee of nonparty CB Richard Ellis, was assigned to work at Hertz locations and subsequently sued Hertz Corporation. Hertz moved for summary judgment, contending that Bayona was a special employee, which would bar the action under Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied Hertz's motion and, sua sponte, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment, ruling that he was not a special employee. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The court found that despite Hertz directing the manner of Bayona's work, CB Richard Ellis retained significant control, including paying wages, the right to hire/discharge/reassign, and supervisory oversight, thus preventing a finding of 'complete and exclusive control' by Hertz necessary for special employee status.

Special Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BarAppellate DivisionControl TestEmployer-Employee RelationshipLabor LawJoint EmploymentContractual ControlVicarious Liability
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 60 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