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. B-9948
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 1981

City of Houston v. Torres

Gerardo G. Torres sued the City of Houston for personal injuries after stepping into an uncovered water meter receptacle. The trial court and court of civil appeals ruled in favor of Torres. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed whether Torres was excused from providing written notice of injury within 90 days as required by the City Charter, given his belief that the injury was trivial. The court held that Torres was not excused and that timely notice is a mandatory condition precedent for a lawsuit against the city. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and rendered judgment that Torres take nothing.

Municipal LiabilityNotice of ClaimTrivial InjuryCity CharterTexas LawPersonal InjuryCondition PrecedentStatutory InterpretationGovernmental ImmunityTimely Notice
References
17
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

INA of Texas v. Torres

Jose Orlando Torres was severely injured while working on a truck at Overland Express Company. INA, the workers' compensation carrier for Overland, denied coverage, asserting Torres was an independent contractor. A jury subsequently found Torres to be an employee and awarded him damages, including future medical expenses and attorney's fees. INA appealed this decision, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding Torres's employment status, the jury instructions, and the findings on partial incapacity and earning capacity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings and there were no reversible errors.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorRight to ControlEarning CapacityPartial IncapacityFuture Medical NeedsJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Torres

Carlos Torres, charged with drug trafficking and firearms offenses, moved for reconsideration of his detention order, arguing that a key cooperating witness, Frederick Rolle, had been discredited. U.S. Magistrate Judge Payson had initially ordered Torres detained due to danger to the community, a decision affirmed by U.S. District Judge Larimer. Despite Rolle's testimony being discounted after he failed a lie detector test, Judge Payson maintained that the remaining evidence—including corroboration from a confidential informant, seized evidence from Torres's home (cocaine, shotgun, bulletproof vest, cash), and evidence of unexplained wealth—still strongly supported his detention. The court found that no conditions could adequately assure community safety if Torres were released. Therefore, Torres's motion for reconsideration was denied, and his detention was continued.

DetentionReconsiderationVacaturDanger to CommunityRisk of FlightDrug TraffickingFirearms OffenseCocaineConfidential InformantCooperating Witness
References
2
Case No. 532092
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Brandon Torres

Claimant Brandon Torres appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from August 13, 2020, which denied his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. Torres had initially filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging an occupational left hip injury, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim due to a lack of medical evidence, and Torres did not appeal that decision. The Board subsequently denied Torres' requests for reopening and his application for reconsideration, citing his failure to comply with proof of service requirements under 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion or act arbitrarily and capriciously, as Torres, a party in interest, improperly served the employer's carrier himself.

Workers' CompensationOccupational InjuryHip InjuryProof of ServiceAdministrative ReviewReconsiderationBoard ReviewAppellate DivisionArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of Discretion
References
1
Case No. 05-18-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2019

Maria Torres v. the Netherlands Insurance Company

Maria Torres appealed a no-evidence summary judgment that she take nothing in her lawsuit seeking judicial review of a final decision by the appeals panel of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Worker's Compensation. Torres challenged the panel's findings, asserting entitlement to additional benefits for her injuries. The Netherlands Insurance Co. filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing Torres had no evidence to support her claim for additional benefits due to a compensable injury. Torres failed to file a response or present any evidence, leading the trial court to grant summary judgment. The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court did not err in granting the motion and affirmed the judgment, noting Torres's failure to comply with appellate rules or provide evidence.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ProcedurePro Se LitigantNo-Evidence MotionJudicial ReviewDallas CountyInjury ClaimAppeals PanelMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment Rating
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torres v. City of New York

Wilfredo Torres, a former New York City Department of Corrections (DOC) officer, filed a complaint against the City of New York and several DOC officials. Torres alleged that DOC’s sick leave policy was unconstitutional and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, along with state law claims for medical malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and retention. After the court initially dismissed some claims, Torres later dismissed all federal claims except for equal protection and requested remand of state claims. The court, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, dismissed Torres’s Equal Protection Claim with prejudice and the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Corrections OfficerSick Leave PolicyConstitutional Law42 U.S.C. § 1983First AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEqual ProtectionMedical MalpracticeIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
References
7
Case No. ADJ374895 (GOL 0095400)
Regular
May 13, 2013

ERNEST TORRES vs. BLUM & SONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has dismissed Ernest Torres' petition for reconsideration. This dismissal is a direct result of the petitioner unilaterally withdrawing their own petition. The Board's order formally acknowledges this withdrawal and vacates any further proceedings related to the reconsideration. Therefore, the February 26, 2013 decision stands.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and OrderApplicantDefendantState Compensation Insurance FundFebruary 262013
References
0
Case No. 08-05-00086-CV (TC#2003-2730)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

Pacific Employers Insurance Co. v. Severiano Torres

This case concerns an appeal from the trial court's award of attorney's fees to Appellee Severiano Torres. Appellant Pacific Employers Insurance Co. initially challenged a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision by suing Torres. After nearly 19 months of litigation, Pacific Employers filed a notice of nonsuit, dismissing all claims against Torres without prejudice, shortly before trial. Subsequently, the trial court awarded attorney's fees to Torres. Pacific Employers appealed this award, contending that Torres was not a 'prevailing party' under Section 408.221 of the Texas Labor Code because the case was disposed of by nonsuit, arguing that a judicial ruling on the merits was required. The Court of Appeals disagreed, affirming the trial court's decision. It held that an employee who defends an award, and whose case is subsequently nonsuited by the insurance carrier, is considered a prevailing party for the purposes of the statute, especially given the legislative intent to liberally construe compensation provisions in favor of injured workers.

Attorney's FeesNonsuitPrevailing PartyStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeWorkers' Compensation AppealJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtInsurance Carrier LiabilityEmployee Claimant
References
12
Case No. 04-22-00453-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2023

City of Laredo v. Fausto Torres

The City of Laredo appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by Fausto Torres. Torres sued the City after a light pole fell on him, claiming negligence and gross negligence. The City argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Torres allegedly failed to comply with notice of claim requirements, the City did not own the property, and it lacked actual knowledge of the premises defect. The Fourth Court of Appeals determined that the light pole incident did not constitute a 'special defect' and therefore applied the 'premises defect' standard, which requires proof of the City's actual knowledge of the dangerous condition. Finding no evidence that the City had actual knowledge of the light pole's dangerous condition prior to the accident, the appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in denying the City's plea to the jurisdiction. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order, rendered judgment granting the City's plea to the jurisdiction, and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Plea to the jurisdictionGovernmental immunityActual knowledgePremises defectSpecial defectTexas Tort Claims ActNotice of claimWorker's compensationLamp post fallNegligence
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 256 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