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. 13-00-091-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2000

in Re: Espiridion Guzman

Relator Espiridion Guzman, who was involved in a fatal truck collision, settled a wrongful death and survivor benefits suit with the heirs of the deceased. Subsequently, Haas Anderson and Warning Lites, Inc., co-defendants in the original suit, sought contribution and indemnity from Guzman and his employer, Bicentennial Trucking, Inc., alleging negligent entrustment due to Guzman's incompetence. To support their claims, Haas Anderson requested that Guzman sign authorizations for the release of his drivers history, medical history, employment history, and worker's compensation claims. The trial court ordered Guzman to execute these authorizations, prompting Guzman to file a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Guzman argued that the court lacked the authority under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure to compel him to create documents (the signed authorizations) that did not previously exist. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that Rules 196 and 205 do not authorize a court to order the creation of such authorizations. Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, instructing the trial court to vacate its order compelling Guzman to sign the authorizations.

Writ of MandamusDiscovery DisputeTexas Civil Procedure Rule 196Texas Civil Procedure Rule 205Compelled AuthorizationCreation of DocumentsNegligent EntrustmentMedical Information ReleaseEmployment Information ReleaseWorkers' Compensation Information
References
6
Case No. 01-11-00234-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

the City of Houston v. Enrique Guzman

The City of Houston appealed an interlocutory order denying its plea to the jurisdiction against Enrique Guzman's negligence claims. Guzman had initially sued both the City and its employee, Brent Foltz, after a Houston Police Department patrol car driven by Foltz collided with Guzman's vehicle. Guzman's employer, Harris County, also intervened for subrogated interests, seeking to recover benefits and expenses. The City contended that Guzman's claims were barred by section 101.106(b) of the Texas Tort Claims Act because he initially sued both the governmental unit and its employee. The Court of Appeals, citing its own jurisprudence in similar cases, affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea, holding that section 101.106(b) did not bar the suit against the governmental unit under these circumstances.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to JurisdictionTexas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityNegligence ClaimsElection of RemediesSovereign ImmunitySubrogationWorkers' Compensation ProviderPolice Misconduct
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guzman v. Bevona

Carlos Guzman, a member and former shop steward of Local 32B-32J, sued the Union's Joint Executive Board for violating his rights under the LMRDA and LMRA, and for intentional infliction of emotional distress under state law. Guzman alleged he was retaliated against for protesting union dues and salaries, specifically by being excluded from a meeting, subjected to surveillance by union-hired private investigators, and having his work hours reduced. The defendants moved to dismiss the claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Guzman's claims had sufficient grounds to proceed, including potential damages for breach of union constitution and for extreme and outrageous conduct causing emotional distress.

Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActLabor Management Relations ActFreedom of Speech and AssemblyUnion Dues ProtestShop Steward ExclusionSurveillanceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to DismissUnion Constitution BreachRetaliation
References
19
Case No. NO. 12-02-00052-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2003

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Gustavo Tovar Guzman

Tyson Foods, Inc. appealed a jury's award of over $745,000 to Gustavo Tovar Guzman for injuries sustained when he was struck by a forklift operated by a Tyson employee. Guzman, a chicken catcher employed by a subcontractor, sued Tyson for negligence. On appeal, Tyson challenged the admission of evidence regarding subsequent remedial safety measures and an expert's testimony on lost earning capacity, arguing Guzman's undocumented status should bar such damages. The Twelfth Court of Appeals District in Tyler, Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court ruled that evidence of post-accident safety changes was admissible because Tyson contested its control over the work, and that Texas law permits recovery for lost earning capacity regardless of a claimant's immigration status. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of Tyson's negligence as the proximate cause of Guzman's injuries.

negligencepersonal injuryforklift accidentindustrial accidentindependent contractor liabilitypremises liabilitysubsequent remedial measuresevidentiary rulingsexpert testimonylost earning capacity
References
37
Case No. 05-20-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2022

Albert G. Hill, III v. Margaret Keliher, in Her Capacity as Personal Representative and Successor Independent of the Estate of Albert G. Hill, Jr., and Carol E. Irwin, in Her Capacity

This appeal concerns Albert G. Hill, III's (Hill III) claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting, which were dismissed by the probate court under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Hill III alleged his criminal indictment for false statements on a home equity loan was influenced by his father, Albert G. Hill, Jr., and others, acting with malice and without probable cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the TCPA applied to Hill III's claims. The court found Hill III failed to establish a prima facie case, specifically lacking clear and specific evidence that false information knowingly supplied by appellees was the "but for" cause of his prosecution or that appellees lacked probable cause. The dismissal of criminal charges on procedural grounds was not deemed evidence of unjustifiable prosecution or lack of probable cause.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAMalicious ProsecutionCivil ConspiracyAiding and AbettingAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingPrima Facie CaseProbable CauseFree Speech
References
15
Case No. 01-16-00149-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2017

Amigos Meat Distributors, L.P. v. Julian Guzman and Catherine Michele Montejano

Julian Guzman, a truck driver for Amigos Meat Distributors, was injured while lifting a heavy cow carcass in May 2011. Amigos, a non-workers' compensation subscriber, initially paid his medical bills but later terminated his employment and ceased payments after a surveillance video showed him carrying a laundry basket. Guzman, along with his wife Catherine Montejano, sued Amigos for negligence. The jury found Amigos negligent and awarded Guzman significant damages, including for past medical expenses, pain, and physical impairment. Amigos appealed the damages findings and alleged improper jury arguments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of causation for medical expenses and no incurable error in jury arguments.

Workers' Compensation Non-SubscriberNegligenceCausationMedical ExpensesJury VerdictDamages AppealImproper Jury ArgumentFactoring CompanyPreexisting Condition AggravationAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. 02-21-00290-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2022

in the Estate of Xavier Gomez III

This case concerns an appeal from a probate court's judgment determining Estephany Pachecano to be an heir of the deceased, Xavier Gomez III. Mr. Gomez died in an accident while employed by Appellant Jackson Construction, Ltd. Ms. Pachecano, claiming common-law marriage, sought letters of administration and heirship determination. Jackson Construction intervened, arguing that Ms. Pachecano was precluded from claiming common-law marriage due to a prior workers' compensation agreement where she stated she was not a legal beneficiary. The Court of Appeals dismissed Jackson Construction's appeal, holding that Jackson lacked standing as it was not an 'interested person' in the probate proceeding, having no direct pecuniary interest in Mr. Gomez’s estate. The court affirmed that a defendant in a wrongful-death action does not automatically have standing in a related probate matter.

Common-law marriageHeirship determinationProbate proceedingStanding doctrineInterested personWrongful deathWorkers' compensation benefitsCollateral estoppel defenseAppellate court jurisdictionTexas Estates Code
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Guzman

The relator, Espiridion Guzman, was involved in a fatal truck collision, leading to a wrongful death suit against him and his employer, Bicentennial Trucking, Inc., by the heirs of Domingo Vargas, Sr. Co-defendants Haas Anderson and Warning Lites, Inc., seeking contribution and indemnity, requested extensive discovery from Guzman, specifically authorizations for his driver, medical, employment, and worker's compensation histories. Despite Guzman not challenging the discoverability of the information, he disputed the trial court's authority to compel him to create these authorizations. The trial court ordered Guzman to execute the forms. On mandamus review, the appellate court determined that the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not grant a court the power to force a party to create documents solely to comply with a discovery request. Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, compelling the trial court to vacate its order.

MandamusDiscoveryAuthorizationTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureNon-party discoveryNegligent entrustmentMedical recordsEmployment recordsWorker's Compensation claimsTrial court authority
References
6
Case No. M2003-02483-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2005

Sharon Marcel Keisling v. Daniel Kerry Keisling v. Francisco (Frank) Huberto Guzman & wife, Billie Ann Guzman

This case involves a post-divorce petition to modify child custody. Sharon Marcel Keisling (Mother) and her parents (Grandparents) repeatedly accused Daniel Kerry Keisling (Father) of sexually abusing their daughters, despite multiple medical examinations consistently finding no evidence of abuse. The trial court initially changed custody to the Father, which was temporarily reversed by the Supreme Court on due process grounds. On remand, the trial court again found the allegations unfounded and harmful to the children, granting custody to the Father. The Court of Appeals affirmed the custody change and the dismissal of grandparent visitation but vacated and remanded the decision regarding the Guardian Ad Litem's fees for reconsideration, citing an erroneous legal standard.

Child CustodyDivorce ModificationSexual Abuse AllegationsParental AlienationGrandparent VisitationGuardian Ad Litem FeesDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMaterial Change in CircumstancesChild's Best Interest
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Guzman

Tyson Foods, Inc. appealed a jury verdict that awarded Gustavo Tovar Guzman $745,496.41 for injuries sustained while working as a chicken catcher, claiming negligence by Tyson's employee. The appeal challenged two evidentiary rulings and argued insufficient evidence for negligence and lost earning capacity damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It addressed the admissibility of subsequent remedial measures, finding them properly admitted because Tyson contested control over the work. It also upheld the expert testimony on lost earning capacity, stating that Texas law does not require U.S. citizenship for such recovery. Finally, the court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of Tyson's negligence and the awarded damages.

NegligenceForklift accidentPersonal injurySubsequent remedial measuresEvidentiary rulingsLost earning capacityUndocumented workersImmigration statusCause in factForeseeability
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 402 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