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. NO. 03A01-9711-CV-00525
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1998

Jeff Hubrig v. Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Linc Hall, Individually Larry Pierce, Individually, and Jim Kolling, Individually

Plaintiff Jeff Hubrig, a self-described whistleblower, sought damages after his employment termination, alleging it was due to his refusal to participate in or remain silent about illegal corporate activities. The defendants, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. and several individuals, denied these claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Hubrig was terminated for time card abuse and sexual harassment. Hubrig appealed, raising issues regarding the pretextual nature of his termination reasons, the viability of a common law retaliatory discharge claim, and outrageous conduct. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Hubrig's misconduct was the sole cause for his termination and that he failed to demonstrate his protected activities were the exclusive reason for his dismissal. The court also clarified that individual supervisors could not be held liable under T.C.A. § 50-1-304.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionSummary JudgmentEmployment LawSexual HarassmentTime Card FraudAt-Will EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySupervisor LiabilityWorkplace Misconduct
References
30
Case No. 13-22-00115-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Charles DeRouen, Individually and DeRouen Express Services LLC D/B/A JC Express Services v. Eddie Pridgen, Individually and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC

The appellants, Charles DeRouen (individually) and DeRouen Express Services LLC, appealed a no-answer default judgment in favor of Eddie Pridgen (individually) and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC. The appellate court vacated the trial court's amended default judgment from April 27, 2022, ruling that the trial court's plenary power had expired. The court reversed and remanded the original January 12, 2022 judgment concerning DeRouen individually due to ineffective substitute service. Furthermore, the claims brought by Pridgen Welding LLC were dismissed for lack of standing. However, the court affirmed the January 12, 2022 judgment against DeRouen Express Services LLC in favor of Pridgen, finding that the entity failed to establish a meritorious defense in its motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentSubstitute ServiceDue ProcessCorporate VeilStandingAppellate ProcedurePlenary PowerMotion for New TrialBreach of ContractContractual Dispute
References
47
Case No. NO. 14-17-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2018

Elizabeth Protas v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, David Callender, M.D. Individually and in His Official Capacity, and Danny Jacobs, M.D., Individually and in His Official Capacity

Dr. Elizabeth Protas, a tenured professor at The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), filed suit against UTMB and two individual doctors after being ordered to attend a course, suspended without pay, and deemed ineligible for an incentive plan. The trial court dismissed claims against the individual doctors and granted a plea to the jurisdiction for all claims, citing sovereign immunity. Protas appealed, raising issues regarding discovery denial, election of remedies under the Texas Tort Claims Act, due process violations, discrimination claims under the TCHRA, and a claim for declaratory judgment. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of individual claims and the plea to the jurisdiction for due process and declaratory judgment claims but reversed and remanded the discrimination claims, allowing Protas an opportunity to amend her pleadings.

Employment DiscriminationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionDue ProcessDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Tort Claims ActUltra Vires ClaimTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
42
Case No. 04-17-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Robert B. James, DDS, Inc. Robert B. James, DDS, Individually Jean James, Individually And Alexis Mei Pyles, Individually v. Cassandra J. Elkins, DDS

Dr. Elkins sued her former employer and related individuals for defamation, business disparagement, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and conspiracy, alleging false statements about her financial misconduct. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing their communications were protected free speech. The trial court denied these motions. This concurring and dissenting opinion argues that the TCPA applies to Dr. Elkins's claims and that she failed to present sufficient evidence for the elements of actual malice and outrageous conduct for her claims. Therefore, the dissenting judge would reverse the trial court's order in its entirety, dismiss Dr. Elkins's claims, and remand for a determination of attorneys' fees and costs. The opinion also finds that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over Dr. Elkins's motions for discovery and continuance.

Texas LawDefamationBusiness DisparagementIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCivil ConspiracyTCPAAnti-SLAPPQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceEmployment Dispute
References
46
Case No. 02-13-00029-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Brenda Lund, in Her Individual Capacity, and Kristin Alrick, in Her Individual Capacity v. Eric and Ruth Giauque, Individually and as Next Friend of H.G., N.G., M.G., C.G., and B.G., Minor Children

Brenda Lund and Kristin Alrick, appellants, appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss claims brought by Eric and Ruth Giauque, appellees. The Giauques sued Lund and Alrick for negligence related to the placement of children for adoption, arguing that Section 101.106(f) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code violated the open-courts provision of the Texas Constitution. The appellate court, referencing prior supreme court cases, determined that the legislature's enactment of Section 101.106(f) was a reasonable exercise of its police power, serving the societal goal of limiting claims against individual governmental employees. Consequently, the court found no open-courts violation, reversed the trial court's order, and dismissed the Giauques' claims against Lund and Alrick.

Governmental ImmunityOpen Courts ProvisionTexas ConstitutionCivil Practice and Remedies Code Section 101.106(f)Motion to DismissNegligenceGross NegligenceAdoption CaseworkerAdoption SupervisorScope of Employment
References
44
Case No. 03-98-00598-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1999

Hazel Simpson, Individually and as Next Friend of Her Minor Son Brandon Simpson v. State of Texas Texas Youth Commission Giddings State School Steve Robinson, Individually and as Executive Director of the Texas Youth Commission and Stan Degerolami as Superintendent of Giddings State School And Sandra Burnham, Individually

Hazel Simpson, individually and as next friend of her son Brandon Simpson, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellees. Simpson had sued for common-law damages after being sexually assaulted by a student while teaching at Giddings State School, having previously received workers' compensation benefits. Her suit alleged negligence and intentional acts/omissions by appellees for failing to ensure her safety. The trial court barred her claim under Texas Labor Code section 408.001, finding workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Simpson's allegations did not constitute intentional conduct under the "substantial certainty" test, thus her claims and her son's derivative loss of consortium claim were barred.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyIntentional TortSummary JudgmentNegligenceSexual Assault (workplace)Loss of ConsortiumTexas Labor CodeSafe WorkplaceSubstantial Certainty Test
References
10
Case No. 04-14-00657-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Richard Leshin, Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trust, Trust A v. Juan Gerardo Oliva, Rosina Oliva, Individually and as Successor Trustee of the Davila Family Trusts B, C, and D, and Alma Guadalupe Davila

A party who seeks to vacate an arbitration award bears the burden in the trial court of bringing forth a complete record that establishes its basis for vacating the award. Leshin has completely failed to carry his burden because he has come forth only with a partial record. Leshin has not brought forth a record showing that he was not brought into arbitration in a manner that would render him individually liable. For this reason alone, the trial court was correct in confirming the arbitrator’s award. In any case, the matters in the record clearly establish that the arbitrator was well within his power to determine that Leshin was individually liable for his wrongful acts. The AAA Commercial Rules of Arbitration, which apply to this matter, provide that the arbitrator had the power to rule on his own jurisdiction, 'including any objections with respect to the . . . scope . . . of the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claim or counterclaim.' Finally, the Texas Trust Code is clear that a trustee is always individually liable for his wrongful acts committed as trustee, so it was not necessary to sue Leshin in any particular capacity.

ArbitrationTrustee LiabilityTrust DisputeArbitration AwardAppellate ReviewJurisdictionArbitrabilityTexas LawCommercial Arbitration RulesDavila Family Trust
References
26
Case No. 13-01-410-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2003

Rose Tristan, Individually and D/B/A Rose Cleaning Services and Olga Cristan v. C.A. Walker, Inc. and Any Unknown Individuals

Rose Tristan, individually and d/b/a Rose Cleaning Services, and Olga Cristan sued C.A. Walker, Inc. for various claims including breach of contract, fraud, and defamation. A jury found in favor of Tristan on her breach-of-contract and fraud claims but against Tristan and Cristan on their defamation claims. The trial court's judgment reflected these findings, awarding damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for breach of contract and fraud, reversed the award for attorney fees due to lack of agreement in the record, and affirmed the take-nothing judgment on the defamation claims.

Breach of ContractFraudDefamation ClaimsAttorney Fees AwardAppellate ReviewDamages CalculationElection of RemediesLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyJury Verdict
References
25
Case No. 13-08-00306-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2009

the Wcm Group, Inc. v. Neil Camponovo, Individually and as Representative of the Estate Joel Allen Camponovo, And Margaret Camponovo, Individually

The WCM Group, Inc. appealed the denial of its motion to dismiss claims brought by Neil and Margaret Camponovo, individually and as representatives of the Estate of Joel Allen Camponovo, deceased. The Camponovos sued WCM for negligence and gross negligence after Joel Camponovo's death from hydrogen sulfide exposure. WCM, an engineering firm, argued the Camponovos failed to file a certificate of merit as required by law. The trial court granted the Camponovos an extension to file the certificate, citing good cause due to an expert's family emergency, and denied WCM's motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in granting the extension and determining that good cause was adequately shown, particularly given the minimal delay and lack of prejudice to WCM. The court lifted the stay on proceedings below.

Certificate of Merit ExtensionProfessional Services LitigationEngineering MalpracticeStatute of Limitations ExceptionGood Cause DeterminationAppellate Discretion ReviewMotion to Dismiss DenialInterlocutory Appeal ProcedureDiscovery Disclosure IssuesExpert Affidavit Requirement
References
9
Case No. 01-14-00767-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight , Individually and as Next Friend of Nayla McKnight v. U.T. Physicians

This is a health care liability appeal where Shirley Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, individually and as representatives of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Nayla McKnight, challenge the trial court's decision to grant U.T. Physicians' plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The appellants allege that U.T. Physicians' negligence in treating Shana Lenoir’s twin pregnancy, specifically the administration of a medically unnecessary and contraindicated progesterone injection by Nurse Matthews, proximately caused her death. U.T. Physicians claimed sovereign immunity as a governmental unit. Appellants argue that U.T. Physicians is a private non-profit corporation and an independent contractor, not entitled to sovereign immunity, and that a waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act was sufficiently pled due to the use of tangible physical property.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental UnitIndependent ContractorTexas Tort Claims ActHealth Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNegligenceProgesterone InjectionTwin PregnancyWrongful Death
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,205 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