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. 13-19-00374-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2021

JNM Express, LLC, ANCA Transport, Inc., Omega Freight Logistics, LLC, Jorge Marin, and Silvia Marin v. Lauro Lozano Jr. and Irene Lozano

Lauro Lozano Jr. and Irene Lozano sued JNM Express, LLC, ANCA Transport, Inc., Omega Freight Logistics, LLC, Jorge Marin, and Silvia Marin for negligence and gross negligence. The suit stemmed from a May 2015 eighteen-wheeler accident where Lauro fell asleep at the wheel, allegedly due to appellants' insistence on violating federal driver fatigue regulations. A jury found the businesses negligent and grossly negligent, awarding significant actual and exemplary damages to the Lozanos. The trial court subsequently reduced the exemplary damages. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the portion holding Jorge and Silvia Marin jointly and severally liable for exemplary damages, citing statutory restrictions on joint liability for such awards.

Trucking accidentCommercial motor vehicleDriver fatigueNegligenceGross negligenceCorporate veil piercingJoint and several liabilityExemplary damagesFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsTexas Court of Appeals
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Frank Y.

The case involves an appeal by Frank Z. against a Family Court order from Chemung County, dated January 27, 2003, which found his children neglected. The initial neglect proceedings in 2001 were based on the mother's physical abuse and Frank Z.'s failure to protect his children. After conditions including an order of protection against the mother, Frank Z. violated these terms by permitting the mother to have contact with the children and by inflicting corporal punishment. Following further hearings, the Family Court sustained the neglect petition and placed the children in petitioner's custody for one year. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the neglect finding, including Frank Z.'s willful violation of the protection order and corroborated statements from the children regarding corporal punishment.

Child NeglectFamily CourtOrder of ProtectionCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseAppellate ReviewCorroboration of Child StatementsParental ResponsibilityChild Welfare
References
15
Case No. 03-06-00208-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2008

Shelly Frank, as Beneficiary of Eric Frank v. Liberty Insurance Corporation

The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's interpretation of Texas Workers' Compensation Commission rules regarding notice for appellate deadlines. Justice Waldrop contends that Rule 102.5(a) merely dictates the sending of communications to both claimants and their lawyers, but does not define the start of appeal deadlines. He states that the Texas Labor Code section 410.202 and Rule 143.3 clearly establish that the 15-day appeal period commences upon the claimant's receipt of the hearing officer's decision. The dissent concludes that the appellant, Shelly Frank, failed to meet the statutory deadline as she personally received the decision, and therefore, the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

Workers' Compensation AppealsNotice DeadlinesStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Rules InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsJudicial DeferenceClaimant RepresentationAppellate DeadlinesJurisdictional RequirementsLegal Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franks v. Sematech, Inc.

This case involves an injured employee's third-party liability cause of action and an insurance carrier's derivative claim of subrogation under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Appellant Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company appealed from a summary judgment in favor of appellees Sem-atech, Inc. and Burle Industries, Inc., while appellant Charlie Franks appealed the dismissal of his plea in intervention due to the statute of limitations. Franks was injured in 1991, and Industrial Indemnity, his employer's workers' compensation carrier, filed a subrogation lawsuit in 1993. Franks intervened in 1994, asserting negligence claims against the appellees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Franks's plea, ruling it was time-barred and could not relate back to Industrial Indemnity's original petition, which only asserted its subrogation claim, not Franks's underlying third-party liability claim. Consequently, the appellate court also affirmed the summary judgment for appellees, finding Industrial Indemnity's derivative subrogation claim moot since Franks's recovery rights could not be established.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionDerivative ClaimsTexas LawInsurance Carrier
References
19
Case No. 02-09-00296-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2012

Robert Cruz Lozano v. State

Robert Cruz Lozano appealed his murder conviction for the shooting death of his wife, Virginia Lozano, who died from a gunshot wound at their Denton residence. Lozano claimed the death was an accidental self-inflicted wound or suicide while he was at a tanning salon. However, investigators found numerous inconsistencies with his account, including lividity in the victim's body indicating she had been dead longer than Lozano claimed, and evidence suggesting the crime scene was staged with misplaced items and an excessively oiled gun. Furthermore, his affair and the existence of multiple life insurance policies on his wife provided a strong motive. The medical examiner's official finding on the manner of death remained "undetermined," acknowledging possibilities for homicide, suicide, or accident. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, concluding that the cumulative force of evidence, including Lozano's inconsistent statements and implausible explanations, was legally sufficient for a rational jury to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Murder ConvictionAppellate ReviewCircumstantial EvidenceStaged Crime SceneLividity AnalysisForensic EvidenceGlock PistolDomestic DisputeAlibi DefenseWitness Credibility
References
58
Case No. 2-06-379-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

Manuel Angel Lozano v. State

Manuel Angel Lozano appealed his conviction for assault — bodily injury, arguing insufficient evidence and improper admission of text messages. The victim, Aileen Elizabeth Bah, testified that Lozano, her former boyfriend and fellow police officer, physically assaulted her during an argument, causing a shoulder injury. Lozano claimed he did not intend to injure her and was attempting to console her. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction. The court also held that Lozano's text messages were admissible as admissions by a party-opponent and did not constitute hearsay.

Assault - Bodily InjuryCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceHearsayAdmissions by Party-OpponentText Message EvidenceDomestic AbusePolice MisconductShoulder InjuryMedical Expert Testimony
References
20
Case No. ADJ197289 (BAK 0153739), ADJ372712 (BAK 0153740), ADJ4184680 (BAK 0150036)
Regular
Sep 17, 2013

FRANK LOZANO vs. GEO GROUP, INC.; SEDGWICK CLAIMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Frank Lozano's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely because it was filed more than 25 days after the June 10, 2013, Order. The WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's report, which detailed the untimeliness and would have also denied the petition on the merits if it had been timely. Supplemental petitions were accepted for filing but did not alter the dismissal of the primary petition. Therefore, the WCAB ordered the Petition for Reconsideration dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationuntimelyWCJReport and RecommendationLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Supplemental PetitionsCalifornia Code of Regulations title 8 section 10848Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. Lawrence Union Free School District

Michael D. Frank, a former junior high school mathematics teacher, sued the Lawrence Union Free School District and related entities for discrimination and retaliation after being denied tenure and subsequently fired. Frank alleged discrimination based on perceived disability (morbid obesity) under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYSHRL, and also claimed retaliation for complaining about discrimination. The court denied the defendants' summary judgment motion on Frank's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims concerning being "regarded as" disabled, and on his NYSHRL claims for both disability discrimination and "regarded as" disabled. Additionally, retaliation claims related to a harsh performance review survived. However, Frank's claims for failure to provide reasonable accommodation were dismissed as he never requested any.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL)Summary Judgment MotionPerceived DisabilityObesity DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTenure Denial
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lozano v. H.D. Industries, Inc.

Pablo A. Lozano, a City of El Paso employee, sued H.D. Industries, Inc., the manufacturer of a "Pro-Patch Pothole Patcher," for severe leg injuries sustained while cleaning hardened sand from the machine's bind. Lozano's claims included products liability in negligence and strict liability, alleging design and marketing defects due to a lack of safety mechanisms and inadequate warnings. The jury found no defect in design or marketing and no negligence by H.D. Industries, instead assigning 25% responsibility to Lozano and 75% to the City of El Paso. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict, concluding that the inclusion of the City in the jury charge was harmless error and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectMarketing DefectWarning LabelsJury Charge ErrorComparative ResponsibilityWorkers CompensationAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. 01-13-00923-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2014

Virginia Dailey and John W. Dailey v. Frank Dailey and Terry Dailey

Virginia Dailey and John W. Dailey appealed the dismissal of their claims against Frank Dailey and Terry Dailey, which arose from the conveyance of real property. Virginia and John had sold property to their son Frank and his wife Terry, then later sued to set aside the conveyance, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy. Frank and Terry asserted counterclaims for breach of contract and specific performance. The trial court initially dismissed Virginia and John's claims, then reinstated Frank and Terry's counterclaims, and subsequently dismissed Virginia and John's claims for want of prosecution. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that Virginia and John failed to properly assign error to the final judgment (the June 24th dismissal for want of prosecution) and did not preserve their argument for appellate review, nor provide evidence meeting the Craddock standard.

Real PropertyProperty ConveyanceFraud AllegationsBreach of Fiduciary DutyConspiracy to Commit FraudBreach of ContractSpecific PerformanceDismissal of ClaimsWant of ProsecutionAppellate Procedure
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 351 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