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. ADJ8721311
Regular
Mar 25, 2014

JOSE ANDRES GAYTON HERNANDEZ vs. AL PAK LABOR, OLD REPUBLIC, Administered by CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant is Jose Andres Gayton Hernandez, and the defendants are AL PAK LABOR and Old Republic. A Petition for Removal was filed and subsequently withdrawn by the petitioner. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing the petition. No further action will be taken on this matter.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalDismissedPetitionerApplicantDefendantAdministeredCannon Cochran Management ServicesOld RepublicAl Pak Labor
References
0
Case No. 03-11-00327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. v. Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez

This case involves a lease dispute between Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. (Appellants) and Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez (Appellees). Appellants appealed a trial court's summary judgment which declared that Cedar Contracting's assignment of its commercial lease rights and subsequent sublease violated the lease terms with Connie Hernandez. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the lease terminated upon Hernandez's notice of termination and that Cedar Contracting did not have an unrestricted right to assign or sublease the property without the landlord's consent. The court concluded that the phrase 'or its assigns' in the lease did not override the explicit restriction and found no error in the trial court's decision that Hernandez was justified in interfering with the sublease.

Lease DisputeCommercial LeaseAssignment of LeaseSubleaseLandlord ConsentSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationNotice of TerminationTortious InterferenceAttorney's Fees
References
32
Case No. 2021-06-1105
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2023

Hernandez, Andres v. SMS, Inc., d/b/a Master Stucco

Andres Hernandez, an employee, suffered a left shoulder fracture after falling from scaffolding at a Master Stucco jobsite. The central issue in the expedited hearing was whether Mr. Hernandez was an employee or an independent contractor. The Court determined that Mr. Hernandez was likely to prevail in proving his employee status, thereby requiring Master Stucco to provide reasonable and necessary medical treatment for his injury. However, his requests for temporary disability benefits and past medical expenses were denied at this time due to insufficient admissible proof of wages and medical bills. The case is set for a status hearing on June 19, 2023.

Employee statusIndependent contractorWorkers' compensationMedical benefitsTemporary disabilityShoulder fractureConstruction injuryUndocumented workersEmployer controlScaffolding fall
References
5
Case No. 13-02-00164-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2003

Guadalupe M. Hernandez v. Gary Honish

Appellants, including Guadalupe M. Hernandez, appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to appellee Gary Honish. Appellants contended the trial court erred because a material fact existed regarding whether Honish owed a common-law or statutory duty and whether the lack of a slow-moving-vehicle emblem was the proximate cause of an accident leading to the death of Juan Jose Hernandez. The appellate court reviewed the summary judgment de novo and found no common-law duty for an escort vehicle and no statutory duty under the Texas Labor Code, as Honish did not meet the criteria for its application. Furthermore, the court concluded that the summary judgment evidence did not raise a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of proximate cause, noting the striking vehicle's driver's testimony about his own vehicle's faulty brakes rather than the absence of a slow-moving-vehicle emblem. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order granting summary judgment.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentCommon Law DutyStatutory DutyTexas Labor CodeProximate CauseFarm AccidentWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grocers Supply, Inc. and Jose Narciso Sanchez v. Jose Luis Cabello, Angel Cabello, and Ramiro Cabello

Grocers Supply, Inc. and Jose Narciso Sanchez appealed a jury award to Jose, Angel, and Ramiro Cabello following a collision between Grocers's tractor-trailer and the Cabellos' pickup trucks. The appellants argued federal law preempts lost-wage claims for undocumented workers and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for future medical and property damages. They also contested the trial court's failure to award litigation costs based on a settlement offer. The Cabellos cross-appealed for sanctions and judgment reformation. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding federal immigration law does not preempt state tort law regarding lost wages for undocumented aliens in this context, and rejecting other evidentiary and procedural challenges raised by Grocers.

Federal PreemptionImmigration Reform and Control ActLost WagesLoss of Earning CapacityUndocumented WorkersState Tort LawVehicular AccidentNegligenceJury AwardEvidentiary Sufficiency
References
67
Case No. 13-04-224-CV and 13-04-358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham, Jr. v. Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez, Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada, and Wife, Becky Ortiz

This case involves consolidated appeals concerning debt collection and alleged tortious conduct. Appellants, G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham, Jr., sought to satisfy a 1990 judgment debt against Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez and Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada by attempting to levy against Schor's, a business owned by Becky Ortiz. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgments determining the 1990 debt was contractual and Schor's was Ortiz's special community property, not subject to the debt. Ortiz also filed counterclaims for damages including abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, for which a jury awarded her damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgments regarding the nature of the debt and the status of Schor's property. However, it reversed the judgment awarding damages to Ortiz, finding no evidence to support her counterclaims for tortious conduct, thus negating the basis for punitive and mental anguish damages.

Texas Court of AppealsConsolidated AppealsDeclaratory JudgmentEx Parte ReceivershipCommunity Property LawContractual DebtTort ClaimsAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionDefamation
References
76
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08350
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2015

Matter of Edubilio Andre R. (Andre R.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Family Court's orders of fact-finding and disposition, which determined that the respondent father, Andre R., permanently neglected his children. The Family Court had properly excused the petitioner agency, Cardinal McCloskey Community Services, from its duty to exercise diligent efforts for reunification. This decision was based on the father's felony conviction for sexual abuse, prior findings of sexual abuse against his daughter and medical neglect of his son, and expert testimony indicating that reunification would be traumatic for the children. The court noted the father's failure to participate in services or sexual offender programs while incarcerated. Additionally, appeals from the dispositional portions of the orders were dismissed due to the father's default at the hearings.

Child NeglectPermanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationSexual AbuseMedical NeglectDiligent Efforts ExcuseFamily Court AppealAppellate Division First DepartmentBest Interests of the ChildDefault at Dispositional Hearing
References
3
Case No. M2018-02183-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2020

Jose Sifuentes, D/B/A Jose's Electric v. D.E.C., LLC

A subcontractor, Jose Sifuentes, sued general contractor D.E.C., LLC, for unpaid work on a bowling alley project. The trial court initially dismissed all claims, including breach of contract and quantum meruit, due to Sifuentes being an unlicensed contractor, citing Tennessee Code Annotated § 62-6-103(b). On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and promissory fraud claims. However, it reversed the dismissal of the quantum meruit claim, clarifying that Tennessee law limits an unlicensed contractor's recovery to actual documented expenses but does not abolish the common law remedy itself when dealing with another professional. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the quantum meruit claim.

Subcontractor disputecontract lawquantum meruitpromissory fraudstatutory interpretationcontractor licensingTennessee appealssummary judgmentdamages limitationcivil procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Gladys Hernandez sued AT & T for wrongful discharge, alleging retaliation after filing a worker's compensation claim for a wrist injury sustained in January 2002. AT & T terminated Hernandez citing unsatisfactory attendance, adhering to a progressive disciplinary policy. Hernandez had a history of absences and previous warnings, including a final letter of warning prior to her 2002 injury. The trial court granted summary judgment for AT & T, which the appellate court affirmed. The court found Hernandez failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that AT & T's non-discriminatory reason for termination was a pretext for retaliation.

Wrongful DischargeRetaliationWorker's Compensation ClaimSummary JudgmentAttendance PolicyBurden-ShiftingCausal LinkPretextCircumstantial EvidenceLabor Law
References
8
Case No. 08-20-00015-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2022

Jorge L. Hernandez v. King Aerospace

This case involves an appeal regarding whether plaintiff-worker Jorge L. Hernandez was an "employee" of King Aerospace under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act's exclusive-remedy provision, which would bar his personal injury claim. A jury initially found Hernandez was not an employee, awarding him over a million dollars. However, the trial court disregarded the jury's verdict, concluding Hernandez was King's employee and entered a take-nothing judgment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's decision, finding the procedural question of error in deciding the issue was not preserved. Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Hernandez's employment status, which the jury had resolved against King. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to reinstate the jury's verdict in favor of Hernandez.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorRight to ControlJury VerdictDirected VerdictJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 1,221 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