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. 03-05-00547-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2006

Gary Milner D/B/A Gary's Industrial MacHine and Fabrication Company v. Balcke-Durr, Inc., and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company

This appeal addresses whether Gary Milner d/b/a Gary's Industrial Machine and Fabrication Company properly perfected a mechanic's and materialman's lien, impacting his claim against an indemnity bond. The district court had granted summary judgment in favor of appellees Balcke-Durr, Inc. and Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, ruling that the lien was not perfected. Milner challenged this decision on two grounds: the affidavit's certification and its timely filing. However, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Milner's lien affidavit failed to reference the months in which work was performed, a critical statutory requirement. Consequently, the court concluded that the non-compliance with statutory provisions regarding lien perfection precluded Milner's claim.

Mechanic's LienMaterialman's LienIndemnity BondSummary JudgmentLien PerfectionTexas Property CodeStatutory ComplianceSubcontractorAffidavitTimeliness
References
23
Case No. CV-24-1330
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Gary Troiano

Claimant Gary Troiano appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board had reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's acceptance of Troiano's medical expert's report, ruling it should be precluded for non-adherence to Workers' Compensation Law § 137. The Board had also denied Troiano's application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division found that the Board erred in considering the employer's argument regarding the medical report's admissibility, as the employer failed to raise this objection in a timely manner. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's July 2024 decision and remitted the matter, deeming the appeal from the denial of reconsideration academic.

Medical expert reportTimelinessPreclusion of evidenceSchedule loss of useAdministrative reviewReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionRight wrist injuryIndependent Medical Examiner
References
9
Case No. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. 03A01-9805-CV-00162
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 1999

Ronald Stephen Satterfield, Sr. v. Gary Long & Richard Smith

Ronald Satterfield, a former officer of the Tennessee Public Service Commission (PSC), sued his former supervisors, Lieutenant Richard Smith and Captain Gary Long, for the tort of outrageous conduct, alleging they manufactured false charges leading to his wrongful discharge. A jury awarded damages against both Long and Smith, and Satterfield cross-appealed the dismissal of his constitutional claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for compensatory and punitive damages against Long, finding sufficient evidence of malicious intent and outrageous conduct, including deliberately filing false reports. However, the court reversed the judgment against Smith due to insufficient evidence supporting outrageous conduct. The Trial Court's dismissal of Satterfield's constitutional claims was also affirmed, as Long and Smith had no control over the administrative hearing and termination proceedings.

Outrageous ConductIntentional TortWrongful DischargeFalse AccusationsRetaliationPunitive DamagesCivil Service GrievanceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityImmunity of State EmployeesEmotional Distress
References
20
Case No. 14-17-00883-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2019

Charles Lee Cunningham, III, and Karan Lozano v. Christi Lee Waymire, and Gary Michael Waymire, Individually and as Next Friend of Minor Children MC and MC2

This is an interlocutory appeal concerning a lawsuit filed by Christi Lee Waymire and Gary Michael Waymire against Charles Lee Cunningham III and Karan Lozano. The Waymires sued for libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and conspiracy after Cunningham and Lozano made false reports to Child Protective Services (CPS) and other individuals, alleging child molestation and drug abuse. The appellate court applied the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA) and reviewed the trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, upholding some of the Waymires' claims while dismissing others, specifically Christi's libel claim against Cunningham and all negligence claims. The court further elaborated on the application of the TCPA and various defamation defenses, including the Defamation Mitigation Act, ultimately declining to dismiss claims solely based on DMA non-compliance.

Child Abuse AllegationsDefamationLibelIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceCivil ConspiracyTexas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA)Anti-SLAPP LawInterlocutory AppealFamily Dispute
References
61
Case No. 13-02-090-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Cheryl Ann Smith v. Gary Smith

Cheryl Smith, the appellant, appeals the trial court's award of spousal maintenance to Gary Smith, the appellee, in their divorce proceedings. The appellant challenges several findings of the trial court, including that the appellee lacks sufficient property, is unable to support himself due to an incapacitating physical disability, and that there is a causal link between his disability and his inability to secure appropriate employment. The background reveals that Gary suffered a cerebral aneurism in 1974, which resulted in a physical disability affecting his fine motor movements and causing severe headaches, preventing him from working. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision under an abuse of discretion standard, examining the evidence supporting the findings regarding Gary's disability, his inability to work, and his minimum reasonable needs. The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of spousal maintenance.

DivorceSpousal MaintenancePhysical DisabilityIncapacitating DisabilityEarning AbilityAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewFamily LawTexasCommunity Property
References
13
Case No. 01-19-00618-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2021

Gary Lynn Fomby v. Manorcare-Sharpview of Houston Texas, LLC and Sharpview SNF Management, LLC

The case involves an appeal by Gary Lynn Fomby against ManorCare's motion to dismiss, based on Fomby's alleged failure to file a Chapter 74 expert report. The concurring opinion addresses Fomby's arguments that he preserved constitutional challenges (open-courts and due-process) to the expert-report requirement and that these requirements are unconstitutional. While agreeing that Fomby preserved these arguments, the opinion finds his constitutional challenges lack merit, reaffirming previous Texas court decisions that Chapter 74's expert-report requirement is rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose of discouraging frivolous malpractice suits. Consequently, the judgment affirming dismissal is concurred.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportChapter 74Open CourtsDue ProcessConstitutional LawAppellate ProcedurePreservation of ErrorTexas LawFrivolous Lawsuits
References
21
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. 03-06-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2007

Gary Romano v. Gary Newton

Gary Romano appealed a post-answer default judgment awarding Gary Newton $176,150.68 in actual damages and $6,216.21 in attorney's fees. The dispute arose from Romano's failure to pay for a contract to purchase deli products, a customer list, and distribution rights from Newton. Romano, acting pro se, failed to appear at trial, leading to the default judgment. While the appellate court upheld the district court's decision regarding Romano's motion for a new trial based on insufficient notice, it found the evidence insufficient to support the full damages and attorney's fees. The court affirmed the judgment conditioned on a remittitur of $146,606.21, reducing the award to the amount supported by the sworn account claim.

Default JudgmentPost-answer defaultMotion for New TrialNotice of Trial SettingDue ProcessCraddock FactorsConscious IndifferenceRemittiturSufficiency of EvidenceDamages Award
References
24
Case No. ADJ779674 (VNO 0477979)
Regular
Sep 21, 2012

CAESAR (CESAR) RIVAS vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering a prior award in the case of Caesar Rivas v. City of Los Angeles. The WCAB intends to admit into evidence two previously marked-for-identification medical reports: one by Gary Halote and another by Dr. David Glaser. These reports were initially excluded due to objections but will now be admitted unless good cause to the contrary is shown within ten days. Upon expiration of this period, the case will be submitted for a decision after reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardGary Halote reportDr. David Glaser reportNotice of Intention to Admit EvidenceMarked for IdentificationObjected to evidenceDecision After ReconsiderationPermissibly Self-Insured
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 6,019 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