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. 11-17-00130-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2019

Francis Gonzales, Individually and as Surviving Widow of Carlos Gonzales v. Brad Williams D/B/A Brad Williams Farms

Appellant Francis Gonzales, individually and as the surviving widow of Carlos Gonzales, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Appellee Brad Williams d/b/a Brad Williams Farms. The lawsuit stemmed from Carlos Gonzales's death in a single-vehicle accident while in the course and scope of employment with Appellee, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, alleging negligence and gross negligence. Appellee asserted an intoxication defense based on a toxicology report showing multiple controlled substances in Carlos's blood. Appellant argued a lack of reasonable notice for a summary judgment rehearing and the existence of material fact issues, but the appellate court affirmed. The court found that the second hearing did not require new notice and that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of intoxication, noting that the cause of the accident was irrelevant to the intoxication defense.

Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentIntoxication DefenseWrongful DeathNegligenceGross NegligenceMedical Examiner ReportToxicology ReportControlled SubstancesBurden of Proof
References
13
Case No. W2008-02605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2009

Silvino Gonzales, Invidually and as Next Friend of Rubcel Gonzales, a Minor v. Judith Long

This case involves an appeal stemming from a minor automobile accident where Silvino Gonzales, individually and on behalf of his minor son Rubicel Gonzales, sued Judith Long for whiplash injuries. Although the defendant admitted fault for the accident, she disputed causing any damages. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant despite testimony from Dr. Michael Douglas Hellman, who opined that Rubicel was injured by the accident. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the admission of evidence questioning Dr. Hellman's credibility and arguing the jury's verdict was unsupported. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the circuit court's decision, concluding that the challenged evidence was relevant to witness credibility and that material evidence supported the jury's finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove injury or causation.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryWhiplashMedical Expert TestimonyJury VerdictEvidence AdmissibilityWitness CredibilityCausation DisputeAppeal AffirmationTennessee Appellate Court
References
25
Case No. 14-08-00377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2009

Thomas Gonzales v. Services Lloyds Insurance Company

Thomas Gonzales sought workers' compensation benefits after injuring his back while working for Watson Grinding and Manufacturing Company, Inc., which was insured by Service Lloyds Insurance Company. The Division of Workers' Compensation initially denied his claim, and an appeals panel affirmed this decision. Gonzales then petitioned for judicial review in the 152nd District Court of Harris County, Texas. The trial court subsequently granted a no-evidence summary judgment in favor of Service Lloyds Insurance Company. On appeal, Gonzales argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the decision and affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Gonzales failed to provide sufficient summary-judgment evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding a compensable injury or disability.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentCompensable InjuryDisability ClaimJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofProcedural RulesTexas Labor Code
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Gonzales

This case concerns an appeal by Dillard’s Department Store against a judgment favoring its former employee, David Gonzales, who alleged sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress by his supervisor, Daniel Tellez. Gonzales reported Tellez's inappropriate touching and suggestive remarks to store management, but Dillard's response was deemed inadequate, leading to Gonzales's constructive discharge and a subsequent suicide attempt. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of sexual harassment under the TCHRA, including compensatory damages and attorney's fees, but reversed the judgment for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the associated exemplary damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressAppellate ReviewWorkplace MisconductSupervisor LiabilityDamages AwardAttorney's Fees
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Casualty and Surety Company v. Gonzales

This workman's compensation case involved an appeal by The Western Casualty and Surety Company, challenging an award for total and permanent disability to Alfredo R. Gonzales. Gonzales suffered a severe hand injury requiring multiple operations and eventual amputation, leading to widespread pain and disability in his arm, shoulder, chest, back, and legs. The appellant contended the injury was specific, while Gonzales argued it extended to cause a general injury. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence that the original specific injury and subsequent medical treatments resulted in a compensable general injury, rendering him totally and permanently disabled.

Workman's CompensationGeneral InjurySpecific InjuryTotal and Permanent DisabilityMedical Treatment AggravationJury IssuesSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas LawTendon Surgery
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzales v. Galveston Independent School District

Plaintiff Robert Gonzales brought an employment discrimination suit against the Galveston Independent School District (GISD) and several individual defendants, alleging violations of his property and liberty interests, Equal Protection rights, and the Texas Whistleblower statute. Gonzales claimed he was retaliated against for reporting official misconduct and for complaining about GISD's hiring practices after being denied a promotion. Presiding Judge Kent of the District Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all federal claims, dismissing them with prejudice. The court found that Gonzales failed to establish a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest, and that his Equal Protection and Free Speech claims lacked sufficient evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motivation for his termination. Consequently, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction and remanded the remaining state-law claims to the 212th Judicial District Court of Galveston County, Texas.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentFederal ClaimsState Law ClaimsRemandFree SpeechDue ProcessLiberty InterestProperty InterestWhistleblower
References
30
Case No. 10-09-00413-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2010

Ex Parte Servando Castaneda Gonzales

Servando Castaneda Gonzales appealed a trial court’s decision in an underlying writ of habeas corpus proceeding. He subsequently filed a motion with the appellate court, requesting the dismissal of his own appeal. The motion was personally signed by Gonzales. The Tenth Court of Appeals, finding the motion appropriate, dismissed the appeal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a).

Habeas CorpusAppeal DismissedMotion to DismissWrit ProceedingAppellate ProcedureTexas LawCriminal AppealVoluntary DismissalCourt of Appeals
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzales v. Caterpillar Tractor Company

Santiago Gonzales, who sustained back injuries after falling from a step on a Caterpillar Traxcavator, sued Caterpillar alleging design defect and negligent design. A jury initially found in favor of Gonzales, awarding $252,991.05. The Court of Civil Appeals subsequently reversed this decision, ruling that there was no evidence to support claims of design defect or negligent design. However, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, determining that there was evidentiary support for both the design defect and negligent design findings made by the jury. The case was remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals for further consideration of factual insufficiency points.

Design DefectNegligent DesignProduct LiabilityStrict LiabilityPersonal InjuryIndustrial EquipmentHeavy MachineryWorker SafetySlip and FallEvidentiary Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farm Services, Inc. v. Gonzales

Juan Gonzales successfully sued Farm Services, Inc. and Jeff Burke, Jr. for negligence after being exposed to a highly toxic pesticide discharged from an airplane while working. The trial court awarded Gonzales actual and punitive damages. Appellants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of expert and lay witness testimony, and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and gross negligence. The court also upheld the award for loss of future earning capacity, deeming any evidentiary errors non-reversible.

NegligencePesticide AccidentCrop Dusting LiabilityRes Ipsa LoquiturGross NegligenceExpert Witness AdmissibilityDiscovery ViolationsSufficiency of EvidenceDamages AwardLoss of Earning Capacity
References
18
Case No. No. 11478
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1967

Gonzales v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Baudelia Carmona Gonzales sustained an injury at work and received an award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was later set aside by the district court, allowing only medical expenses. The jury found partial incapacity for 17 weeks with a weekly earning capacity of $50. On appeal, Mrs. Gonzales contested the sufficiency of evidence for the earning capacity and disability findings and alleged prejudice due to cross-examination about her treating doctor's medical society membership. The Court of Civil Appeals found the jury's $50 weekly earning capacity finding unsupported by evidence but affirmed the partial disability duration. The court dismissed the claims of prejudicial error regarding counsel's conduct and doctor's testimony. Ultimately, the judgment of the district court was reversed and the case remanded for a new trial due to the unsupported jury finding on earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation AppealPartial IncapacityEarning Capacity AssessmentMedical Expert TestimonyJury Verdict ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ProcedureRemand for New TrialTexas Civil AppealsSprain Injury
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 85 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