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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiffs John M. Gross and Wayne Adair, employees of South Central Bell Telephone Company, sustained severe burns when a fire erupted in a manhole they were working in. They alleged the fire was caused by leaking natural gas from lines maintained by the defendant, Nashville Gas Company, claiming negligence and strict liability. The trial in Davidson County, Tennessee, in January 1979, resulted in a jury finding both parties negligent and a verdict in favor of Nashville Gas Company, leading to the dismissal of the case. Appellants appealed, raising issues regarding evidence admissibility, jury instructions on remote contributory negligence, strict liability, duty of care, gross negligence, punitive damages, and urging the judicial adoption of comparative negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions, and declined to judicially adopt comparative negligence, suggesting it is a legislative matter. The court found that the evidence did not support a finding of gross negligence or strict liability against the gas company.

Personal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceComparative NegligenceGas LeakManhole FireWorkplace AccidentEvidence AdmissibilityJury InstructionsStrict Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The case concerns the death of A. A. Pierce, an employee of J. Ernest Loyd, in a construction accident on April 10, 1933. His dependents, Ona Pierce, Alvin Archie Pierce, and Leroy Pierce, previously received workers' compensation but sought exemplary damages, alleging Loyd's gross negligence. They claimed the superintendent failed to warn Pierce of dynamite blasts and did not brace the excavation site, leading to a fatal cave-in. The trial court found for the plaintiffs, awarding $8,000. On appeal, the higher court examined whether the evidence met the standard for gross negligence, defined as 'conscious indifference.' The court found that the precautions taken were reasonable and there was no evidence of conscious indifference to danger. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a decision in favor of the appellant, J. Ernest Loyd.

Gross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkers' Compensation ActConstruction AccidentDynamite BlastingWorkplace SafetyConscious IndifferenceAppellate ReviewReversed JudgmentAssumption of Risk
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The Chief Justice concurs with the majority's opinion except for its holding that a release signed by Mrs. Newman waived Tropical Visions' liability for gross negligence. The Chief Justice argues that under existing Texas case law and public policy, gross negligence cannot be waived, citing *Smith v. Golden Triangle Raceway* which held such a release void. The opinion emphasizes that gross negligence and simple negligence are distinct and separable issues in Texas, requiring different proofs of mental state and character of the act. It further asserts that actual damages can be awarded for gross negligence, serving as a predicate for exemplary damages, and notes exceptions where actual damages need not be recoverable for punitive damages. The dissent draws an analogy to worker's compensation claims where gross negligence claims survive despite waivers for ordinary negligence. The Chief Justice concludes that public policy forbids the waiver of gross negligence, and the appellees failed to establish a defense of release for the gross negligence claim as a matter of law because 'gross negligence' was not explicitly mentioned in the release.

WaiverGross NegligenceOrdinary NegligencePublic PolicyReleaseExemplary DamagesActual DamagesSummary JudgmentTexas LawContract Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Maria Cordova slipped on a damp floor in a Wal-Mart store, sustaining injuries. She sued Wal-Mart for negligence and gross negligence, and a jury awarded her $392,000 in actual damages and $250,000 in exemplary damages. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for negligence, gross negligence, and loss of earning capacity, and also challenged the admission of evidence regarding Wal-Mart's net worth before a prima facie case of gross negligence was established. The court found that there was no evidence to support gross negligence and that the admission of net worth testimony was prejudicial error affecting the negligence claim. Consequently, the court reversed and rendered judgment for Wal-Mart on the gross negligence claim and reversed and remanded the negligence claim for a new trial.

NegligenceGross NegligenceSlip and FallPremises LiabilityLoss of Earning CapacityDamagesExemplary DamagesAdmission of EvidenceNet WorthAbuse of Discretion
References
17
Case No. 14-10-00381-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether a gross-negligence claim in a medical malpractice suit requires a separate expert report under the Texas Medical Liability Act. Appellant Younan Nowzaradan, M.D., contended that Appellee Shirley H. Ryans's gross-negligence claim was a distinct cause of action necessitating its own expert report, which he argued was not provided. The court, however, clarified that ordinary negligence and gross negligence are not separate causes of action but are inextricably intertwined, with gross negligence representing a heightened degree of ordinary negligence. Therefore, the expert report submitted for the ordinary negligence claim was deemed sufficient to cover the gross-negligence allegations. The trial court's denial of the motion to dismiss was affirmed.

Medical MalpracticeGross NegligenceOrdinary NegligenceExpert ReportTexas Medical Liability ActInterlocutory AppealStandard of CareCausationPunitive DamagesCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
36
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04540
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

David Garcia, an employee of Temperature Systems, Inc. (TSI), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder supplied by Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. (Emerick) while working at one of Emerick's properties. Garcia sued Emerick alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, prompting Emerick to file a third-party action against TSI for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied both Garcia's and Emerick's motions for summary judgment, and TSI's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted Garcia's cross-motion for discovery sanctions against Emerick for spoliation of evidence, determining that Garcia was entitled to a negative inference at trial due to the disposal of the ladder. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Garcia was a recalcitrant worker and the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and whether the alleged contractual indemnification provision was enforceable.

Personal InjuryLabor LawElevation-related HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSpoliation of EvidenceNegative InferenceRecalcitrant WorkerProximate CauseSafe Place to Work
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an expert report is required for a gross-negligence claim under the Texas Medical Liability Act. Dr. Younan Nowzaradan argued that Shirley H. Ryans's gross-negligence claim necessitated a separate expert report, treating it as a distinct cause of action from ordinary negligence. The court, however, determined that gross negligence is not a separate cause of action but rather a heightened degree of ordinary negligence, inextricably intertwined with it. Consequently, the court found that the existing expert report, sufficient for ordinary negligence, did not require a supplemental report specifically for gross negligence. Therefore, the trial court's denial of Dr. Nowzaradan's motion to dismiss was affirmed.

Gross NegligenceMedical MalpracticeExpert ReportTexas Medical Liability ActCivil Practice and Remedies CodeInterlocutory AppealStandard of CarePunitive DamagesAppellate ProcedureCause of Action
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Brendan Van Voris and his wife, Josephine Durkin, appealed a trial court's summary judgment dismissing their negligence and gross negligence claims against Team Chop Shop, LLC d/b/a Chop Shop MMA and Jerry Howell. The claims arose from an injury Van Voris sustained during an aikido course after signing a pre-injury release. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on the negligence claims, finding the release met fair notice requirements. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the gross negligence claims, stating that pre-injury releases for gross negligence are against public policy and that such claims are not legally inseparable from negligence for the purpose of such a release. The case was remanded for further proceedings concerning the gross negligence claims.

pre-injury releasegross negligencenegligencesummary judgmentpublic policyexemplary damagesfair noticeexpress negligence doctrineconspicuousnessmartial arts injury
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The case concerns an appeal by the surviving family of Jesus Valentin Frias, who sued his former employers for workers' compensation benefits, wrongful death, intentional injury, negligence, and gross negligence, attributing his death from aplastic anemia to benzene exposure during his employment. The trial court initially granted the employers' motion for summary judgment on the intentional injury and gross negligence claims, which was the subject of this appeal. The appellate court found that the Workers’ Compensation Act does not bar actions for intentional torts or gross negligence for exemplary damages, thus reversing the summary judgment. Furthermore, the court determined that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the employers' conduct constituted gross negligence and intentional injury. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathIntentional InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealBenzene ExposureOccupational DiseaseExclusive RemedyExemplary Damages
References
29
Case No. 11-16-00110-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2018

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Appellants, the surviving family of Amando Godines, Sr., sued Precision Drilling Company, L.P. for wrongful death alleging negligence and gross negligence after Godines died in a workplace accident. Precision sought summary judgment, arguing workers' compensation provided the exclusive remedy for negligence and that there was no evidence to support gross negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment, which Appellants appealed, challenging the admission of late evidence and the rulings on both claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the late evidence was properly considered, the negligence claim was barred by workers' compensation, and there was insufficient evidence to establish gross negligence.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathNegligenceGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppealAppellate ProcedureLate-Filed EvidenceExclusive RemedyProximate Cause
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 4,812 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