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. 08-04-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

Francisco Garcia, Individually and as Next Friend of Francisco Garcia, Jr., and Kevin Garcia, Minor Children v. J. J. S. Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A/ PDQ Drive-In Grocery

Francisco Garcia, individually and as next friend for his minor children, Francisco Garcia, Jr. and Kevin Garcia (the Garcias), appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc. (J.J.S. Enterprises). The case originated from the death of Rosario Michelle Garcia, who died during a robbery at her employer, PDQ Drive-In Grocery. Mrs. Garcia, a cashier, pursued a shoplifter against company policy, fell from a moving vehicle, and was fatally injured. The Garcias filed a wrongful death suit alleging negligence, but J.J.S. Enterprises moved for summary judgment citing a pre-injury waiver. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling the pre-injury waiver valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' lawsuit.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentPre-Injury WaiverOccupational Accident PlanNon-Subscriber EmployerTexas LawPublic PolicyFair NoticeActual Knowledge
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrison v. Harrison

This personal injury case involves an appeal stemming from a judgment in favor of John Edd Harrison (appellee) against his brother Benford Harrison (appellant). John Edd sustained severe leg injuries when a log fell from his truck at a sawmill in Trinity, Texas, on September 20, 1973. He sued Benford, alleging employment, Benford's non-subscription to worker's compensation, and failure to provide reasonably safe equipment, which proximately caused his injuries. A jury found in favor of John Edd, awarding $100,000. Benford appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for negligence and proximate cause, and arguing the trial court erred by not submitting a 'special employee' issue regarding John Edd's potential employment by Arnold Starr. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ample evidence supported the jury's findings on unsafe equipment and proximate cause. The court also determined that John Edd was not a 'special employee' of Arnold Starr, as Benford retained control over his brother's work, and the defense was not properly pleaded or supported by evidence. Finally, the court found no reversible error in appellee's counsel's closing arguments concerning insurance.

Personal InjuryEmployer LiabilityUnsafe EquipmentProximate CauseEmployee StatusWorkers' Compensation Non-SubscriberBorrowed Servant DoctrineSpecial EmployeeAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
43
Case No. NO. 07-97-0495-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1999

Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. v. Norma Harrison, Individually and as Next Friend of Sumer Dawn Harrison, KK Glass Company

Lee Lewis Construction, Inc. (LLC), a general contractor, appealed a judgment awarding compensatory and exemplary damages to the kin of Jimmy Harrison, an employee of subcontractor KK Glass, Inc., who died in a ten-story fall at a construction site. LLC also contested the granting of summary judgment to KK Glass, Inc. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's findings of LLC's negligence and gross negligence and the summary judgment granted to KK Glass, Inc., concluding that LLC retained control over safety and its actions created an extreme risk. However, the court found the $500,000 award for Jimmy Harrison's pain and mental anguish to be factually insufficient for the brief period of consciousness and ordered a remittitur of $450,000, reducing the award to $50,000. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.

Construction AccidentNegligenceGross NegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityFall ProtectionWorkplace DeathCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesRemittitur
References
54
Case No. 08-0148; W2008-02036-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2010

State of Tennessee v. Erica Harrison and Alexis Harrison

Erica Harrison and Alexis Harrison, Defendants-Appellants, each entered an open guilty plea to one count of theft of property valued at more than five hundred dollars ($500). The trial court denied their requests for judicial diversion and full probation, sentencing them to periods of incarceration followed by supervised probation. On appeal, the defendants argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying judicial diversion and full probation. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court’s judgments regarding the denial of judicial diversion and full probation, finding substantial evidence to support the trial court's decision. However, the appellate court remanded the case for a new sentencing hearing because the trial court erred in requiring the confinement to be served "day-for-day" in the Tennessee Department of Correction and in extending the term beyond what is allowed for sentencing credits.

TheftJudicial DiversionProbation DenialSentencing HearingCriminal RecordAppellate ReviewTennessee LawGuilty PleaClass E FelonyAbuse of Discretion
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc.

The Garcias, family of Rosario Michelle Garcia, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc., their employer, following Mrs. Garcia's death during a robbery at her workplace. Mrs. Garcia died after pursuing a shoplifter, contrary to company policy, and was run over by a fleeing vehicle. The Garcias brought a wrongful death suit, alleging employer negligence, while J.J.S. Enterprises asserted unforeseeability, lack of proximate cause, and a pre-injury waiver. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that the pre-injury waiver Mrs. Garcia signed was valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' negligence claims. This decision upheld that such waivers, made before June 17, 2001, are not against public policy under Texas law if the employee had actual knowledge of the waiver's terms.

Wrongful DeathNegligence ClaimSummary JudgmentPre-injury WaiverEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanOccupational AccidentNon-subscriber EmployerPublic PolicyExpress Negligence DoctrineFair Notice Requirements
References
24
Case No. 13-99-032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2000

Garcia, Roel v. Allen, William Stuart, Hector Mario Garcia, and Hoechst Celanese Corp.

Roel Garcia, an analyzer technician for Hoechst Celanese Corporation, was terminated in 1997 following a knee surgery that resulted in permanent work restrictions. Garcia subsequently filed suit against Celanese and his supervisors for disability discrimination, negligence, fraud, defamation, and workers' compensation retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Celanese on all claims, prompting Garcia's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Celanese did not owe the alleged duties for negligence, that the defamatory statements were true, that Garcia did not meet the definition of 'disabled' under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, and that no causal link was established for the workers' compensation retaliation claim. The court also upheld the denial of Garcia's motion for a new trial.

Disability DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationNegligence ClaimDefamation ClaimSummary Judgment AppealAt-Will EmploymentPermanent Work RestrictionsKnee InjuryEmployer LiabilityMedical Evaluation Report
References
66
Case No. 533993
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia (Garcia (dec'd), Miguel)

Claimant Francisca Garcia appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision disallowing her claim for death benefits. Her spouse, Miguel Garcia, a World Trade Center volunteer, died in 2016 from conditions established in his prior workers' compensation claim. Garcia filed for death benefits in 2020, which the Board ruled untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. The Board also determined that Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A did not apply to a death benefits claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Article 8-A's exception to the two-year filing rule applied to the participant's disablement claim, not to a separate death benefits claim filed by a non-participant, thus the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28. A dissenting opinion argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 163, by mentioning "injury or death," indicated Article 8-A's applicability to death benefits, suggesting the matter be remitted to address causation and timely filing.

Death Benefits ClaimWorld Trade Center VolunteerWorkers' Compensation Law § 28TimelinessStatutory InterpretationArticle 8-ALatent ConditionsPosttraumatic Stress DisorderGastroesophageal Reflux DiseaseObstructive Sleep Apnea
References
12
Case No. M2020-01140-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2021

Pamela Estelle Harrison v. Shannon Nicole Harrison

This case concerns a same-sex divorce and child custody dispute involving two children conceived through artificial insemination. Joseph Bryan Compton, the sperm donor, intervened, seeking to be declared the legal father and granted parenting time. The trial court denied his request, applying Tennessee's artificial insemination statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 68-3-306) to recognize the non-biological spouse, Pamela Estelle Harrison, as a legal parent. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute must be interpreted gender-neutrally in light of Obergefell v. Hodges and Pavan v. Smith, thereby deeming both married women as legal parents and denying the sperm donor parental status or visitation rights. The court also found no requirement for a written agreement for spousal consent to artificial insemination and upheld the circuit court's jurisdiction.

Same-sex divorceChild custodyArtificial inseminationSperm donor rightsParentageAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationConstitutional lawObergefell v. HodgesPavan v. Smith
References
25
Case No. 93
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia

Francisca Garcia, spouse of deceased volunteer Miguel Garcia, filed a death benefits claim more than two years after his death in July 2016. Miguel Garcia had received lifetime benefits for health conditions contracted while volunteering in the 9/11 World Trade Center recovery efforts. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) and Appellate Division disallowed the claim as untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, which sets a two-year statute of limitations for death benefits. The central legal question was whether Workers' Compensation Law § 168, which extends filing periods for 'participants' in WTC recovery, applies to claims by survivors. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that § 168's language, referring explicitly to 'a claim by a participant,' does not extend to claims made by beneficiaries, thus the claim remains barred by § 28.

Death Benefits ClaimWTC Volunteer9/11 Recovery WorkersStatute of Limitations ExtensionWorkers' Compensation Law Article 8-ASurvivor's Claim TimelinessParticipant DefinitionLegislative Intent InterpretationUntimely Filing DisallowanceAppellate Division Affirmation
References
3
Case No. 2007-3856
Regular Panel Decision

FERNANDO GARCIA v. MVT Services, Inc.

The case involves Jesus Fernando Garcia and Maria de Lourdes Garcia (Plaintiffs) suing MVT Services, Inc. (Defendant) and other entities for the wrongful death of their son. The Plaintiffs initially filed in Texas state court, but the case was removed to federal court by MVT Services. The core issue is the timeliness of the removal by MVT Services. The Court found that MVT Services received "other paper" (a settlement agreement with the non-diverse defendant in October 2007 and a demand letter for $750,000) that made the case removable much earlier than its May 2008 removal. Consequently, the Defendant's removal was deemed untimely, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand was granted, returning the case to state court. The request for attorneys' fees was denied.

Motion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyNon-diverse PartiesVoluntary Act of PlaintiffOther Paper RuleFederal Question JurisdictionState Court ActionWrongful Death
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 538 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