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. 13-11-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2013

Tony Dustin Perez v. Antonio Perez and Marsha Perez

Dustin Perez sued his parents, Antonio and Marsha Perez, after breaking his elbow at their home. The parties settled the liability portion, and a jury awarded Dustin $7,400 in damages. Dustin appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for the damage award, errors in the jury charge, improper jury arguments, and the denial of his motion for sanctions. The Court of Appeals reviewed each of Dustin's ten issues, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's damage awards and concluding that no reversible error occurred. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Personal InjuryNegligenceDamagesJury VerdictAppealEvidence SufficiencyJudicial AdmissionJury InstructionsMitigation of DamagesSanctions
References
48
Case No. 07-01-0111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2001

Shanna Perez, Individually and as Next Friend of Samantha Perez v. Williams & Peters Construction Company

Shanna Perez, individually and as next friend of Samantha Perez, appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in her gross negligence suit against Williams & Peters Construction Co., Inc. The suit stemmed from the death of Pedro Perez during his employment, who was asphyxiated by sand while cleaning a bin. Despite the employer being a worker's compensation subscriber, the appellant sought damages for gross negligence. The appellate court reviewed whether the appellant presented more than a scintilla of evidence for gross negligence, applying the standard of extreme risk and subjective awareness of the risk with conscious indifference. The court ultimately found no evidence that the employer or its employees subjectively knew of the particular risk to Pedro on the day of the incident, despite potential OSHA violations and inadequate procedures, and thus affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Gross NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealWorkplace FatalityConfined Space AccidentEmployer LiabilityWorker's Compensation LawTexas Court of AppealsAsphyxiation DeathOSHA ViolationsConscious Indifference
References
14
Case No. 14-09-00456-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2010

Jose A. Perez and Nancy C. Perez v. Old American County Mutual Fire Insurance Company

In this insurance coverage dispute, the owners of a vehicle damaged in a collision appeal the trial court’s judgment that the insurer has no duty to defend the insured or pay damages arising from the accident. On October 4, 2007, Maria Nambo, an unlicensed driver, was involved in an accident. Her father, Mario Nambo, had an automobile insurance policy with Old American County Fire Insurance Company. Old American rescinded the policy after learning Maria resided with Mario and was not disclosed. Mario had warranted that he and Virginia were the only drivers and residents over fifteen, and later, deemed admissions showed he intentionally failed to disclose Maria's residence and unlicensed status to deceive Old American. The trial court ruled in favor of Old American, declaring the policy properly rescinded and Old American had no duty to defend or pay damages to the Nambos or Jose Perez. The trial court also dismissed the Perezes' claims with prejudice for failure to appear. The Perezes appealed, challenging the denial of their summary judgment motion, the notice of trial setting, the legal sufficiency of the evidence, and the trial court's failure to provide a licensed translator for Mario Nambo. The appellate court overruled all issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Automobile InsuranceInsurance CoveragePolicy RescissionMaterial MisrepresentationDeceptive Trade Practices ActSummary JudgmentTrial NoticeLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceInterpreter RightsDue Process
References
4
Case No. 01-17-00689-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2019

Diane Perez and Ricky Perez v. Greater Houston Transportation Company D/B/A and or A/K/A Yellow Cab Company and/or Yellow Cab, and Delwende Nikiema

Diane and Ricky Perez sued Greater Houston Transportation Company (GHTC) and Delwende Nikiema for negligence after Diane was injured in a collision with a GHTC cab driven by Nikiema. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment for GHTC, concluding Nikiema was an independent contractor, leading the Perezes to appeal. The appellate court analyzed whether GHTC exerted sufficient control over Nikiema to establish an employer-employee relationship under respondeat superior, despite a contract stating he was an independent contractor. Considering evidence of GHTC's training, fare penalties, and provision of dispatch and GPS routing, the court found the Perezes raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding Nikiema's employment status and scope of employment. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment against GHTC and remanded the case for further proceedings.

TexasCourt of AppealsSummary JudgmentRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorNegligenceVicarious LiabilityRight of ControlEmployer-Employee RelationshipTaxicab
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Corp. v. Perez

Oscar Perez sued Exxon for personal injuries sustained while working under Exxon's supervision. Exxon asserted an affirmative defense, arguing Perez was a "borrowed servant" and thus, as a Workers' Compensation Act subscriber, Exxon was immune from common-law negligence. The trial court rejected this defense by not including a relevant jury question and definition, a decision upheld by the court of appeals. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the contract between Exxon and Perez's direct employer (Hancock Construction & Services Co.) was not solely determinative of Perez's status. Evidence of Exxon's right of control over Perez's work details should have allowed the "borrowed servant" defense to be considered by the jury. The case was remanded for a new trial.

Borrowed Servant DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ImmunityAffirmative DefenseJury Charge ErrorRight of ControlCommon-Law NegligencePersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityTexas Supreme CourtAppellate Reversal
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hunter v. Perez Interboro Asphalt Co.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Hunter was injured when a construction barricade timber rolled onto her foot. She sued Goodkind & O’Dea (G&O), the engineering inspection contractor, and Perez Interboro Asphalt Company (Perez), the prime contractor, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court denied G&O's motion for summary judgment but granted Perez's motion. On appeal, the court modified the order, denying Perez's summary judgment motion and reinstating the complaint against Perez. The denial of G&O's motion for summary judgment was affirmed.

construction accidentpersonal injurysummary judgmentappellate reviewnegligencecontractual dutybarricade safetyengineering contractorprime contractorNew York County Supreme Court
References
9
Case No. NUMBER 13-17-00102-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Mary Dreese

This interlocutory appeal addresses the denial of Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful death lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought by Mary Dreese, Dolores Perez, Jessica M. Perez, and Jennifer L. Perez (Plaintiffs and Intervenors) following the death of Francisco Perez, a Mission employee, in a truck accident. Mission, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance, had an Employee Health and Safety Plan containing an arbitration clause. The Plaintiffs and Intervenors argued this clause was unenforceable due to an illusory promise in the Plan's termination section, which they claimed gave Mission unilateral control. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, concluding that the challenge to the termination provision applied to the entire Plan, not just the arbitration clause, and therefore, under the Federal Arbitration Act and state contract law, the issue of enforceability should be decided by an arbitrator, not the courts. The case was remanded for the trial court to grant Mission's motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationEmployment DisputeWrongful DeathInterlocutory AppealContract LawIllusory PromiseFederal Arbitration ActEmployer LiabilityNon-subscriberTexas Law
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07864
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2016

Perez v. Gateway Realty LLC

Plaintiff Rafael Perez, a superintendent, suffered neck and back injuries while moving a heavy elevator motor at a building owned by Gateway Realty LLC. The injury occurred when a dolly wheel became stuck in a sidewalk crack, requiring Perez to lift the dolly. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Gateway Realty LLC, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the decision, concluding that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law due to an established employee/employer relationship between Perez and Gateway Realty LLC, and Perez's receipt of workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionEmployer-Employee RelationshipProperty Owner LiabilityPersonal InjurySidewalk DefectLabor LawAffirmed DecisionSuperintendent
References
3
Case No. ADJ1271468 (LAO 0838972) ADJ3841157 (LAO 0840312) ADJ249664 (LAO 0843194)
Regular
Mar 03, 2009

JORGE PEREZ vs. REGENT MANUFACTURING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior award concerning industrial injuries sustained by Jorge Perez. The primary issue was whether the applicant was entitled to recommended dental treatment, which the defendant had denied via utilization review (UR). The Board found the record unclear regarding the timeliness of the defendant's UR denial and the applicant's subsequent objection process. Consequently, the case was remanded for further development of the record, particularly concerning the UR timeline and the dispute resolution procedures under Labor Code sections 4062 and 4062.2.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRegent ManufacturingState Compensation Insurance FundJorge Perezindustrial injurieslow backright lower extremityneckleft earside of face
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. McConkey

The plaintiff, Nancy S. Perez, sued her employer, Jamie McConkey d/b/a J & V Sales, for injuries sustained due to alleged unsafe working conditions involving excessive heat and vapors at her workplace in Englewood, Tennessee. Perez claimed she fainted and fell, suffering heat exhaustion and a head injury, and that McConkey negligently failed to address her complaints about the conditions. The trial court initially granted a directed verdict for the defendant based on the implied assumption of risk. The Court of Appeals applied the principles of comparative fault, vacating the judgment and remanding the case. This court affirms the Court of Appeals' judgment, as modified, ruling that the doctrine of implied assumption of risk is no longer a complete bar to recovery in Tennessee and that such issues should be analyzed under common-law concepts of duty and comparative fault.

Comparative FaultImplied Assumption of RiskNegligenceEmployer LiabilityWorkplace SafetyTort LawJudicial DoctrineAbrogationTennessee Supreme CourtDuty of Care
References
80
Showing 1-10 of 344 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