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

People v. Starks

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, stemming from his failure to report workers' compensation benefits while receiving social services benefits. The appellate court first addressed the defendant's Batson challenge regarding a peremptorily excused black juror, affirming the lower court's finding that the prosecutor's explanation was race-neutral. Next, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the grand larceny conviction, noting that the defendant's misrepresentations were material and resulted in an overpayment exceeding $3,000. Additionally, the court rejected claims of abridged confrontation rights, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the judgment was modified to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences for the grand larceny and false instrument for filing convictions, and as modified, affirmed.

Grand LarcenyFalse Instrument for FilingSocial Services Benefits FraudWorkers' Compensation OverpaymentBatson ChallengeJuror Peremptory ChallengeSufficiency of EvidenceConfrontation Clause RightsProsecutorial MisconductIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
23
Case No. DC-15-604
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2015

City of Rio Grande City, Texas, and Joel Villarreal, Herman R. Garza III, Arcadio J. Salinas III, Rey Ramirez, and Dave Jones in Their Official Capacities v. BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP D/B/A Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley

BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley (Plaintiff) sued the City of Rio Grande, Texas and its elected officials (Defendants) after the City attempted to prematurely terminate its exclusive solid waste collection contract with Allied Waste and entered into an agreement with Grande Garbage Collection Co. (Intervenor/Plaintiff). Allied Waste sought a temporary injunction, arguing that the City's actions constituted a breach of contract and violated various constitutional rights, including the Contract Clause and Due Process. The District Court, presided over by Judge Migdalia Lopez, conditionally granted Allied Waste's request for a temporary injunction on November 10, 2015, restraining the City from interfering with Allied Waste's exclusive contractual rights. The defendants, including Grande Garbage Collection Co., are appealing this temporary injunction.

Contract DisputeExclusive FranchiseWaste ManagementMunicipal LawTexas LawConstitutional RightsDue ProcessInterlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionBreach of Contract
References
31
Case No. 13-03-427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2006

Columbia Rio Grande Regional Healthcare, L.P. D/B/A Rio Grande Regional Hospital v. Alice H. Hawley and James A. Hawley

This case involves an appeal by Columbia Rio Grande Regional Healthcare, L.P., d/b/a Rio Grande Regional Hospital, from a jury verdict in favor of Alice H. Hawley and James A. Hawley. The Hawleys sued the Hospital for negligence in failing to timely communicate Alice H. Hawley's colon cancer diagnosis, which led to a significant delay in treatment and the cancer becoming inoperable. The central issue revolved around the sufficiency of evidence regarding causation, specifically whether Mrs. Hawley had a greater than 50% chance of survival at the time of the Hospital's alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling all of the Hospital's ten issues on appeal, which included challenges to evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and damages.

Medical MalpracticeHospital NegligenceCancer MisdiagnosisColon CancerLoss of Chance DoctrineProximate CauseExpert Testimony AdmissibilitySufficiency of Medical EvidenceJury Charge ErrorDamage Caps
References
63
Case No. 13-08-00542-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2010

Rio Grande Regional Hospital, Inc. and Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare, L.P. D/B/A Rio Grande Regional Hospital v. Diana Lopez Villarreal, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Hermes Villarreal, and as Next Friend of Sarah Villarreal, Lauren Villarreal, and Hermes Alejandro Villarreal, Minors, and Hermelinda Villarreal, Indvidually

This appeal stems from a wrongful death and survival action based on a health care liability claim against Rio Grande Regional Hospital for the suicide of Hermes Villarreal while under their care. The jury concluded the hospital was 75% responsible, and the trial court awarded damages, applying statutory caps. Appellants (hospital) argued lack of evidence for foreseeability and causation, and that Hermes's suicide was an intervening cause. Appellees (Villarreal family) cross-appealed regarding Hermes's proportionate responsibility and the application of damage caps. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on causation and foreseeability, and that the suicide was not a superseding cause. The court also held that both sections 74.301(b) and 74.303 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code should be applied for damage caps.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathSuicideHospital NegligenceForeseeabilityCausationIntervening CauseSuperseding CauseDamage CapsComparative Negligence
References
79
Case No. 13-06-00353-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2009

in Re: Rio Grande Regional Hospital

Rio Grande Regional Hospital sought a writ of mandamus to compel arbitration in a negligence suit brought by its former employee, Norma Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a housekeeper, was injured on the job and sued Rio Grande, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation. Rio Grande argued a signed 'Election to Participate' in an Employee Health and Safety Plan, which included an arbitration clause, bound Gonzalez. However, Gonzalez contended the agreement lacked consideration because she was ineligible for the plan's benefits as a 'PRN' employee and was denied coverage upon injury. The Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, denied the writ, affirming the trial court's decision. The appellate court ruled that Rio Grande's promise of benefits was illusory, rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable due to a lack of consideration.

ArbitrationContract LawEmployment ArbitrationLack of ConsiderationIllusory ContractWrit of MandamusTexas Civil ProcedureFederal Arbitration ActWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberAppellate Review
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rio Grande Regional Hospital, Inc. v. Villarreal

This appeal concerns a wrongful death and survival action arising from a health care liability claim. Appellees, the family of Hermes Villarreal, sued Rio Grande Regional Hospital, Inc. and Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare, L.P. after Hermes committed suicide while hospitalized for severe headaches and anxiety. A jury found the hospital 75% responsible, awarding damages subsequently capped by the trial court. Appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding foreseeability and causation of the suicide, and the rejection of their affirmative defense. Appellees cross-appealed regarding Hermes's proportionate responsibility and the application of damage caps. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings and the trial court's application of statutory damage caps.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathSuicideHospital NegligenceHealth Care LiabilityCausationForeseeabilityDamage CapsProportionate ResponsibilityNurses' Standard of Care
References
87
Case No. 13-06-00088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2008

Michael T. Jelinek, M. D. & Columbia Rio Grande Healthcare, L. P., D/B/A Rio Grande Regional Hospital v. Francisco Casas

Eloisa Casas was admitted to Rio Grande Regional Hospital for abdominal pain and possible small intestine obstruction, later diagnosed with metastatic colon cancer and an E. coli infection. She underwent a subtotal colectomy. Due to hospital staff oversight, her prescribed antibiotics were not renewed for over four days, leading to a setback in her condition and additional infections. Eloisa Casas's husband and son, Francisco Casas and Alfredo DeLeon, Jr., sued the Hospital and doctors for negligence, alleging increased pain and suffering, and a jury awarded $250,000 in damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against both appellants, finding sufficient evidence for causation and mental anguish damages, and no reversible error in jury instructions or the denial of a motion for sanctions.

Medical MalpracticeHospital NegligencePhysician NegligenceCausationMental Anguish DamagesJury Verdict AppealSufficiency of EvidenceExpert Witness TestimonyAntibiotic OversightSurvival Claim
References
33
Case No. 04-10-00872-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2011

City of Laredo v. Rio Grande H2O Guardian

This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of the City of Laredo's plea to the jurisdiction against Rio Grande H20 Guardian. Rio Grande H20 Guardian filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the legality of zoning ordinances passed by the City of Laredo. The City contended that Rio Grande lacked standing and that its claims were unripe and moot. The City also appealed the trial court's handling of a writ of mandamus request for public records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Rio Grande had associational standing, its claims were ripe, and not moot. The court further clarified that the trial court did not issue a ruling on the writ of mandamus, leaving no issue for review on that specific point.

Zoning LawLand Use PlanningMunicipal OrdinancesStanding DoctrineRipeness DoctrineMootness DoctrineInterlocutory AppealDeclaratory Judgment ActionPublic Information ActTexas Constitution
References
42
Case No. 2022-02-0435
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2024

Dingus, Gary v. GRAND PIANO AND FURNITURE COMPANY

Gary Dingus, an employee of Grand Piano and Furniture Company, suffered significant injuries after falling approximately 20 feet from a forklift. Grand Piano denied the claim, asserting Dingus willfully failed to use a safety device by not properly tethering himself. The Court, however, found that Dingus's injuries arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment, rejecting Grand Piano's defense. The Court credited Mr. Dingus's testimony that he believed he was tethered and that the device may have loosened. As a result, the Court ordered Grand Piano to provide medical benefits, pay for past medical expenses, and provide temporary total and permanent partial disability benefits to Mr. Dingus.

Workers' CompensationForklift AccidentSafety DeviceWillful MisconductFall from HeightBack InjuryLeg FractureMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityPermanent Partial Disability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 1994

People v. Parker

Jeffrey and Khristy Olesko discovered a substantial sum of money missing from their home in Voorheesville, Albany County. Defendant, a construction worker, was subsequently arrested and convicted of grand larceny in the third degree. On appeal, the defendant challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence, alleged prosecutorial error during cross-examination, and disputed comments made in the prosecutor's summation. The court found the evidence legally sufficient, acknowledged a prosecutorial error regarding witness credibility but deemed it harmless given the curative instruction, and ruled that summation comments were not preserved for review. Furthermore, the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel under both Federal and State Constitutions were denied, and the sentence, which fell within the statutory range for a predicate felon, was affirmed.

Criminal AppealGrand Larceny Third DegreeEvidentiary SufficiencyProsecutorial MisconductWitness CredibilitySummation CommentsIneffective Assistance of CounselState ConstitutionFederal ConstitutionSentencing Review
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 227 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