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

Avila v. State

Samuel and Nilsa Avila, operating as Mundo Latino, appealed a judgment and permanent injunction issued after a jury trial initiated by the State of Texas under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). The Avilas, who assisted Spanish-speaking individuals with immigration and tax matters without proper licensing, were found to have engaged in false, misleading, and deceptive practices. The jury found they unlawfully counseled on immigration and acted as notaries in prohibited ways. The trial court ordered them to pay $60,000 each for restitution and $100,000 each in penalties, plus attorneys’ fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment and permanent injunction but modified the injunction by deleting an overbroad paragraph that restricted the Avilas' access to all financial assets, including those from legitimate business activities.

Unauthorized Practice of LawDeceptive Trade PracticesConsumer ProtectionImmigration ServicesNotary Public ViolationsPermanent InjunctionRestitutionCivil PenaltiesSufficiency of EvidenceHearsay Exception
References
23
Case No. 03-18-00233-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2018

Armando Avila v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Armando Avila appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) concerning his employment termination. Avila sued UPS, alleging disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and wrongful discharge/retaliation under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA). His termination followed a DWI arrest and issues with his occupational driver's license, which UPS deemed restrictive for a driver position due to safety and liability concerns. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding Avila failed to create a material fact issue regarding his qualifications, UPS's legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for termination, or evidence of pretext for discrimination or retaliation. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Avila's motion for continuance.

Disability DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTexas Workers’ Compensation ActOccupational Driver's LicenseIgnition Interlock DeviceCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson-Avila Construction, Inc. v. Stoutamire

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a lawsuit stemming from a construction site accident. Gregory Paul Stoutamire suffered fatal injuries, and Keith Schoolcraft sustained personal injuries. The appellees, Stoutamire's family and Schoolcraft, sued the general contractor, Lawson-Avila Construction, Inc., a subcontractor, and a crane operator for negligence and gross negligence. The jury found Lawson-Avila 40% negligent and awarded actual and exemplary damages. Lawson-Avila appealed, raising various points of error regarding legal duty, jury instructions, and the sufficiency and excessiveness of the gross negligence and exemplary damages findings. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, upholding the finding of a legal duty owed by Lawson-Avila and confirming the gross negligence and exemplary damage awards as proportionate. The court also reinstated a jury award for Schoolcraft's future physical impairment.

Construction AccidentWorkplace SafetyNegligenceGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityDuty of CareOSHA RegulationsFactual Sufficiency
References
40
Case No. 13-13-00717-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Douglas Michael Bulthuis v. Jose Juan Avila

This case involves an appeal from the 370th Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas. Douglas Michael Bulthuis (Appellant) filed counterclaims against Jose Juan (J.J.) Avila (Appellee) alleging assault and defamation per se. A jury found Avila liable for defamation per se and awarded Bulthuis $750,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in exemplary damages, but no damages for the assault claim. The trial court, presided over by Honorable Noe Gonzalez, granted Avila's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), concluding the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's damage awards, and instead awarded Bulthuis only nominal damages of ten dollars. Bulthuis subsequently filed this appeal. Appellee Jose Avila's brief argues that the Thirteenth Court of Appeals should affirm the trial court's judgment due to Bulthuis's failure to present a complete reporter's record on appeal and the legal insufficiency of evidence for the jury's damage findings.

AppealJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictNominal DamagesDefamation Per SeLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ProcedureMental Anguish DamagesLoss of Reputation DamagesExemplary DamagesCourt Costs
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2012

Avila v. Astrue

Isabel Avila brought this action against the Commissioner of Social Security, challenging the denial of her Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Avila alleged disability due to arthralgias, major depressive disorder, and anxiety, but her application was denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. The District Court upheld the ALJ's determination regarding Avila's physical capacity for 'medium work,' citing reports from Dr. Hitzeman and Dr. Caiati. However, the Court found that the ALJ erred in evaluating Avila's mental impairments, specifically by improperly discrediting the opinion of her treating psychiatrist, Dr. Ibanez, without adequate justification or proper development of the administrative record. Consequently, the Commissioner’s decision is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings to ensure a comprehensive review of the medical evidence.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeDisability AppealMental ImpairmentDepressionAnxietyArthralgiaTreating Physician RuleALJ ErrorResidual Functional Capacity
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Webb v. Lawson-Avila Construction, Inc.

This appeal examines an indemnity clause within a contract between general contractor Lawson-Avila and subcontractor Palmer Steel Supplies. Lawson-Avila sought indemnification from Palmer Steel and its insurer, Employers Casualty Company, for exemplary damages incurred after being found grossly negligent in a prior lawsuit. The primary legal question was whether the contractual indemnity, which explicitly covered Lawson-Avila's own negligence, extended to its gross negligence. The court concluded that the clause intended to cover all degrees of negligence, including gross negligence, thereby obligating Palmer Steel to indemnify Lawson-Avila. Consequently, the trial court's judgment in favor of Lawson-Avila and its insurer, American General, was affirmed.

Indemnity clauseGross negligenceContractual indemnificationSubcontractor agreementExemplary damagesInsurance contractThird-party beneficiaryExpress negligence doctrinePublic policyTexas law
References
18
Case No. 04-17-00291-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2018

Roberto Avila Rodriguez v. Panther Expedited Services Inc., Amigo Staffing, Inc., Dicex International, Inc.

Appellant Roberto Avila Rodriguez brought a negligence action against Panther Expedited Services, Inc., Amigo Staffing, Inc., and Dicex International, Inc., seeking to recover for injuries sustained while operating a forklift. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dicex and Panther, dismissing Dicex’s third-party claims against Amigo Staffing as moot. Rodriguez appealed, challenging the summary judgments and the dismissal of Dicex's claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Panther, finding no vicarious liability under federal motor carrier regulations or common law, and insufficient evidence of Panther's own negligence. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for Dicex and remanded that portion of the case, concluding that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act provision Dicex relied upon was inapplicable to the date of injury.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActTemporary Employment ServicesFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNondelegable DutyIndependent ContractorRight of Control
References
58
Case No. 2017-02-0141
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2017

Avila, Eduardo v TLG Motors, LLC

Eduardo Avila filed a request for an expedited hearing against TLG Motors, LLC, seeking workers' compensation benefits for a right middle finger injury sustained while cleaning cars. The central legal issue was whether TLG Motors, LLC met the statutory definition of an "employer" under Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, which requires employing at least five persons for pay. Both Avila and Mr. Georgio, owner of TLG Motors, testified that the company only had three employees at the time of the injury. Consequently, the Court found that TLG Motors did not meet the statutory criteria for an employer, rendering it not subject to mandatory workers' compensation insurance coverage. Therefore, Mr. Avila's request for temporary disability and medical benefits was denied, as he was deemed unlikely to prevail on the merits of his claim.

Expedited HearingEmployer DefinitionStatutory EmployerUninsured EmployerEmployee Count ThresholdTennessee Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Benefits DenialBurden of ProofSmall Business Liability
References
2
Case No. 2017-02-0141
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

Avila, Eduardo Carrera v. TLG Motors, LLC

The case involved Eduardo Carrera Avila's claim for a right middle finger injury sustained on August 16, 2014, while working at TLG Motors. The central issues were whether TLG Motors met the statutory definition of an 'employer' under Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, requiring a minimum of five employees, and if Mr. Avila's Petition for Benefit Determination was timely filed within one year of the injury. The Court found that TLG Motors only employed three persons, thus not qualifying as a covered employer, and that Mr. Avila failed to timely file his petition. Consequently, the Court denied the claim for lack of jurisdiction and untimely filing.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusEmployer DefinitionStatute of LimitationsJurisdictionHand InjuryUninsured EmployerTennessee LawClaim DenialBurden of Proof
References
2
Case No. ADJ6894399
Regular
Jun 16, 2010

URIEL DE AVILA vs. BRENT REDMOND TRANSPORTATION, NOVAPRO RISK SOLUTIONS, CALIFORNIA TRUCKERS SAFETY ASSOCIATIONS

In *De Avila v. Brent Redmond Transportation*, the applicant, Uriel De Avila, sought removal in a workers' compensation case. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the accompanying administrative law judge's report. Finding no grounds for removal, the Board denied the petition. This decision means the case will proceed without the requested removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDeniedBrent Redmond TransportationNovapro Risk SolutionsCalifornia Truckers Safety AssociationsUriel de AvilaAdministrative Law JudgeRecord ReviewIncorporation by Reference
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 54 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