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. 14-14-01020-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2015

Mariano Diaz, Individually and A/N/F of Mariano Diaz II, a Minor Child v. Kevin Johnson, John Edward Johnson, Johnnie M. Williams, and Joe Oran Williams

M.D., a minor, suffered serious injuries. His father, Mariano Diaz, filed suit, seeking a contingency fee on a settlement. M.D.'s mother, Marie Sol Johnson, intervened as next friend, having sole legal authority. A $30,000 settlement was reached. The trial court approved the settlement but reduced Mariano's counsel's fees from 25% to $2,500 due to his failure to appear and Marie's exclusive authority. Mariano appealed the fee reduction, citing due process violations and impropriety of Marie's intervention. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no due process violation and upholding the discretion in awarding attorney's fees.

Minor's SettlementAttorney's FeesAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessNext FriendContingency FeeAppellate ReviewGuardian ad LitemInsurance Policy LimitsPersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Attorney General of the State v. Johnson

The Attorney General appealed a judgment awarding Johnson attorney's fees and court costs after a trial court found the Attorney General's fraud claim against Johnson, regarding worker's compensation benefits, to be frivolous. The Attorney General argued that article 8307, section 9a exempted his agency from liability under Chapter 105, that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, and that Johnson's motion for fees did not comply with section 105.003. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Chapter 105 is applicable to the Attorney General, that the claim lacked arguable basis as Johnson's form did not inquire about other employment and continuous work during benefits was not wrongful, and that Johnson's motion was timely and procedurally compliant.

Attorney's FeesFrivolous ClaimsWorker's Compensation FraudAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationFraudulent ConcealmentTrial Court Judgment AffirmedLitigation ExpensesState Agency Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc. v. Sanchez

Martha Sanchez, a material handler for Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc., suffered an on-the-job injury in 1987 and was subsequently placed on an 'indefinite medical layoff.' Despite assurances of recall, she was never reinstated. Sanchez filed suit in 1991, alleging wrongful termination under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (article 8307c) and later adding claims for fraud and breach of contract. The trial court's rulings led to an appeal, where the court of appeals reversed summary judgment on the 8307c claim and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the fraud claim. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment regarding the 8307c claim, remanding it for further proceedings due to a factual dispute over when Sanchez received unequivocal notice of termination. However, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision on the fraud claim, rendering judgment for Johnson & Johnson due to a lack of evidence of reliance on the part of Sanchez.

Wrongful terminationStatute of limitationsFraud claimWorkers' compensationMedical layoffUnequivocal noticeCause of action accrualSummary judgmentJudgment notwithstanding verdictReliance element
References
14
Case No. 13-23-00436-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

John William Johnson v. Town of Fulton

Appellant John William Johnson challenged a permanent injunction issued in favor of Appellee Town of Fulton, arguing errors in subject matter jurisdiction, summary judgment, and attorney's fees. Fulton had sought injunctive relief against Johnson for obstructing Casterline Drive, a public right-of-way, and also requested declarations concerning nuisance and abandonment of an easement. Johnson contended that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the easement boundaries due to conflicting surveys. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and the grant of summary judgment, finding no material fact issue concerning the easement. However, the court reversed the award of attorney's fees to Fulton, concluding that the declaratory relief obtained was duplicative of the injunctive relief and appeared to be solely a vehicle for recovering fees.

Road obstructionPublic right-of-wayPermanent injunctionSummary judgmentSubject matter jurisdictionAttorney's feesDeclaratory judgmentEasement disputeProperty boundariesTexas Government Code
References
34
Case No. M2010-01924-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2012

James Johnson and wife, Elaine Johnson v. The Torrington Company

James Johnson, a heavy equipment operator, suffered severe injuries in a workplace accident involving a custom-made waste container at a Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) transfer station in Giles County. Johnson and his wife sued The Torrington Company, the owner of the container, and Wastequip Manufacturing Company, its fabricator, alleging negligence in design, manufacturing, inspection, and maintenance. Wastequip settled, and a first jury found BFI solely at fault. The trial court, acting as the thirteenth juror, granted a new trial. A second jury found Torrington 90% at fault and Johnson 10% at fault, awarding the plaintiffs $3.5 million, which was reduced to $2,925,000 after a remittitur for Mrs. Johnson's damages. Torrington appealed, challenging the vacating of the first verdict, the second jury's findings, the allocation of fault (specifically the exclusion of BFI due to workers' compensation immunity), and the amount of the verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict and the allocation of fault.

Workplace InjuryProduct LiabilityNegligenceComparative FaultWorkers' Compensation ImmunityJury VerdictNew TrialThirteenth Juror RuleDamages AwardLoss of Consortium
References
23
Case No. 03-07-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2008

Lois Bush and Randy Busch v. Johnson-Sewell Ford Lincoln Mercury

Appellants, spouses Lois Bush and Randy Busch, appealed a final summary judgment in a case against Johnson-Sewell Ford Lincoln Mercury. The Bushes alleged they were induced into purchasing a vehicle through misrepresentation about its features, leading to claims of DTPA violations, fraud, and breach of warranty. Johnson-Sewell counterclaimed for breach of a settlement agreement, relying on prior correspondence. The district court granted summary judgment for Johnson-Sewell, upholding the settlement and awarding attorney's fees. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment rulings and the award of attorney's fees, ultimately affirming the district court's judgment.

Summary judgmentContract interpretationDeceptive Trade Practices ActBreach of contractAttorney's feesAppellate reviewMisrepresentationVehicle saleOffer and acceptanceMutual assent
References
35
Case No. 02A01-9605-JV-00123
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1997

Mary Helen Pearson Johnson v. Luther William Johnson

The case involves an appeal by Luther William Johnson from a trial court's dismissal of his motion to set aside a consent order of paternity and support. Johnson, previously declared the father of a child with Mary Helen Pearson Johnson, sought relief after paternity testing identified John Jones as the biological father, a fact later admitted by the mother. The appellate court found the trial court erred in applying res judicata and judicial estoppel, emphasizing the "overriding importance" of ensuring an individual conclusively established not to be a father is not legally declared one. The court highlighted the "extraordinary circumstances of extreme hardship" caused by the conflicting paternity orders and the mother's admission. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling, stressing the judicial system's role in preventing such contradictory legal statuses and protecting the child's welfare.

Paternity DisputeChild Support EnforcementConsent Order ChallengeFraudulent MisrepresentationDNA Paternity TestRes Judicata DoctrineJudicial EstoppelRule 60.02 ReliefAppellate Court DecisionJuvenile Court Jurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Dallas County

Connie A. Johnson appealed the trial court's judgments regarding her worker's compensation claim against Dallas County. Johnson, injured in 1988, initially settled with the County and also secured an award from the Texas Worker's Compensation Commission for medical expenses. The County later challenged this award, arguing it had already paid medical expenses through its self-funded health insurance plan, thus precluding a double recovery for Johnson. Johnson contended the collateral source rule prevented the County from taking credit for these payments. The trial court sided with the County, awarding Johnson only $1933.22 for out-of-pocket costs and denying pre-judgment interest and appellate attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the collateral source rule was inapplicable as the County was not a tortfeasor and had made payments from its own self-insurance fund.

Workers' CompensationCollateral Source RuleSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentPre-judgment InterestAttorney's FeesSelf-InsuranceMedical ExpensesReimbursementTexas Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Blum

Petitioners Johnson and Stone challenged the denial of public assistance for their minor children, a denial based on State Commissioner’s Administrative Directive 80ADM-1. This directive, issued in response to Matter of Gunn v Blum, made entire families ineligible for public assistance if applicants refused to dispose of non-essential assets like automobiles, treating applicants differently from recipients. Special Term found the directive violated equal protection but denied attorney's fees without explanation, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division as discretionary. The Court of Appeals reversed, clarifying that under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, a prevailing party should ordinarily recover reasonable attorney's fees unless special circumstances render it unjust, according to the Newman-Northcross rule. The Court rejected arguments that publicly funded legal services or personal relief constituted special circumstances, and remitted the case to the Supreme Court, Chemung County, for the determination of counsel fees.

Attorney's FeesCivil Rights ActPublic AssistanceEqual ProtectionPrevailing PartySpecial CircumstancesRemittedAppellate ReviewConstitutional LawAdministrative Directive
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc.

Martha Sanchez sued Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc., for wrongful discharge, breach of contract, and fraud after an on-the-job injury led to her not being recalled to work. The trial court granted summary judgment against her retaliatory discharge claim and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on a fraud claim where the jury had awarded damages. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, citing a factual dispute over Sanchez's termination date, which impacted the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, upholding the jury's findings of fraud, lost wages, mental anguish, and exemplary damages, remanding the retaliatory discharge claim and rendering judgment for Sanchez on the fraud claim.

Wrongful DischargeBreach of ContractFraudSummary JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictWorkers' Compensation ActRetaliatory DischargeStatute of LimitationsLabor Management Relations ActFederal Preemption
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 5,802 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