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

United States v. Estrada-Tepal

The case involves Defendants Jorge Estrada-Tepal, Ricardo Estrada-Tepal, and Victor Leonel Estrada-Tepal, who are charged with sex trafficking and related offenses. Defendant Ricardo Estrada-Tepal filed a motion to dismiss all counts brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1591, arguing that the law is unconstitutionally overbroad as it infringes upon the right to free association. The Court, after construing the statute, acknowledged its broad scope, which encompasses seemingly harmless conduct without requiring a specific criminal purpose to further sex trafficking. However, the Court determined that the potential interference with intimate and expressive association rights was not substantial in relation to the statute's legitimate goal of eliminating human trafficking. Consequently, the Court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Sex TraffickingOverbreadth DoctrineFirst AmendmentFreedom of AssociationCriminal LawMotion to Dismiss18 U.S.C. § 1591Human TraffickingStatutory InterpretationDue Process
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estrada v. Wausau Insurance Co.

The case involves an appeal by Ramiro Estrada against a judgment favoring Wausau Insurance Company for conversion. Estrada, an attorney, represented Joseph Garcia in a personal injury claim against a third-party tortfeasor. Despite Wausau's subrogation lien for workers' compensation benefits paid, the third-party insurer, Allstate, settled directly with Garcia and Estrada. Wausau subsequently sued Estrada and Garcia, among others, for reimbursement and conversion. The trial court awarded Wausau $17,000. On appeal, Estrada contested the denial of his motion for continuance and argued that Wausau's recovery from Allstate should have satisfied its subrogation rights. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing Wausau's statutory right to full reimbursement from the converted settlement funds.

SubrogationConversionWorkers' CompensationAttorney LiabilitySettlement DisputeStatutory InterpretationAbuse of DiscretionMotion for ContinuanceDue ProcessAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 04-98-00207-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 1998

Ramiro Estrada v. Wausau Insurance Company and Joseph P. Garcia

Ramiro Estrada appealed a judgment awarding Wausau Insurance Company damages for conversion. Estrada, an attorney, represented Joseph Garcia in a personal injury claim and received settlement funds from Allstate Insurance, despite Wausau's subrogation rights for workers' compensation benefits paid to Garcia, which totaled over $40,000. The trial court denied Estrada's motion for continuance and awarded Wausau $17,000 against Garcia and Estrada, jointly and severally, for the converted settlement amount. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance and upholding Wausau's right to full reimbursement under statutory subrogation, emphasizing that the workers' compensation carrier is entitled to the first money recovered until fully reimbursed.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationConversionAttorney LiabilitySettlement FundsTexas Civil ProcedureMotion for ContinuanceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewReimbursement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Maintenance & Rentals, Inc. v. Estrada

Manuel Estrada, an employee of Commercial Metals, was severely burned when a pressurized cylinder containing flammable hydraulic fluid ignited while he was cutting it. Estrada sued American Maintenance & Rentals (American) and Freeport Blasters for negligence and marketing defect, arguing American supplied the dangerous cylinders. On appeal, the court examined the admissibility of various statements by Jeff Stanley, president of Freeport Blasters, which implicated American. The court found error in admitting Stanley's assertions to Estrada's investigator without a limiting instruction, deeming them incompetent hearsay. Concluding that without this improperly admitted evidence, there was no more than a scintilla of circumstantial evidence to prove American supplied the cylinders, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

NegligenceMarketing DefectHearsay EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceInterrogatoriesAgency RelationshipSpoliationVerbal ActsAdmission by ConductReversible Error
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estrada v. Dillon

Dennis Dillon suffered severe injuries in a rear-end collision with a Lear Lines tractor-trailer driven by Manuel Estrada. Dillon and his worker's compensation carrier, CNA Insurance Companies, sued Estrada and Lear Lines. A jury found both parties 50% negligent and awarded Dillon damages for past pain, loss of earning capacity, and past medical expenses, but zero damages for other categories. The trial court partially granted a motion to disregard jury findings on past medical expenses, increasing the award. On appeal, Lear Lines challenged this, while Dillon and CNA cross-appealed the zero-damage findings. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding the jury's zero-damage finding for past physical impairment against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and remanded the case for a new trial solely on damages.

Motor Vehicle AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceAppellate ProcedureJury VerdictDamagesMedical TreatmentPhysical ImpairmentMental AnguishWorker’s Compensation
References
12
Case No. No. 13-84-099-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 1985

Detar Hospital, Inc. v. Estrada

This medical negligence case involves plaintiff Roque Estrada, who sustained permanent heart damage due to a medication error at Detar Hospital. A jury awarded significant damages, which the trial court reduced based on statutory caps. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi, affirmed awards for past and future pain and suffering but deemed the lost earning capacity award excessive, ordering a remittitur. Crucially, the court also declared the Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act's provisions limiting medical liability damages unconstitutional, finding them an unreasonable infringement on a plaintiff's right to full redress. The final judgment was reversed and rendered, reforming the damages after the remittitur.

Medical MalpracticeDamagesEarning CapacityConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionStatutory LimitsRemittiturJury VerdictAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
31
Case No. 08-02-00349-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2004

Old Republic Insurance Company v. Maria A. Estrada

This is a restricted appeal where Old Republic Insurance Company sought to overturn a default judgment. Maria A. Estrada filed a worker's compensation claim and subsequently sued in district court. A default judgment was entered against Old Republic. The appellate court found that the trial court's plenary power had expired before it signed a second Modified Judgment, rendering that judgment and subsequent actions void. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.

Restricted AppealDefault JudgmentPlenary PowerAppellate ProcedureWorker's CompensationTexas LawMotion to Modify JudgmentJurisdictionVoid JudgmentTimely Filing
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Estrada v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

This litigation arose out of an automobile accident involving plaintiff Francisco Estrada and an uninsured motorist. State Farm, Estrada's insurer, delayed payment on his claim, leading to an arbitration award. Estrada subsequently filed a complaint alleging State Farm violated its common law and Texas statutory duty of good faith and fair dealing by delaying the payment. State Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing a bona fide controversy existed due to conflicting medical opinions regarding the plaintiff's injuries and treatment. The court found State Farm had a reasonable basis for the delay based on the expert reports, thus entitling State Farm to summary judgment and dismissing the case.

Summary JudgmentBad Faith ClaimInsurance LawAutomobile AccidentUninsured MotoristDelay in PaymentDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingConflicting Medical OpinionsArbitration AwardFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arredondo v. Estrada

Plaintiffs, Ricardo Arredondo, Jr., Richard Rabino, and Mario Torrez, all former employees of Weatherford International, LLC, filed suit for damages arising out of abusive treatment and sexual harassment by their supervisor, Joey Estrada. The abuse included physical assaults, referred to as “nubbings,” and demeaning vulgarities. Plaintiffs brought federal claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for discrimination based upon sex, sexual harassment, hostile work environment, constructive discharge, and retaliation, as well as state law claims for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention against Weatherford. The Court granted Weatherford’s motion for summary judgment on the Title VII retaliation claims, intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, and negligent hiring, supervision, training, and retention claims. The Court denied summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ Title VII sex discrimination (including sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge) and assault claims, ordering them to proceed to trial. The decision addressed issues of administrative remedies exhaustion, the “continuing violation” theory for limitations, proof of sex discrimination in same-sex harassment cases (including gender stereotyping), the severity and pervasiveness of the conduct, Weatherford’s Ellerth/Faragher affirmative defense, constructive discharge, and employer liability for assault (including course and scope and ratification theories), as well as the application of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive remedy bar.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationAssault and BatteryRetaliation ClaimConstructive DischargeEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Act
References
34
Case No. ADJ8669912, ADJ8093149, ADJ8095729, ADJ8086538
Regular
Apr 15, 2015

ERASTO ESTRADA vs. ENNABE PROPERTIES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Erasto Estrada v. Ennabe Properties, Inc. This decision was made due to statutory time constraints and the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. The WCAB requires all correspondence related to the petition to be filed directly with the Commissioners in San Francisco, not the district office, and specifically prohibits e-filing for these matters. Trial level documents unrelated to the reconsideration petition should continue to be filed through EAMS or in paper form as permitted.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationEnnabe PropertiesADJ8669912ADJ8093149ADJ8095729ADJ8086538San FranciscoEAMSWCJ
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 50 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