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

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. 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

Trico Technologies Corp. v. Montiel

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the "after-acquired evidence doctrine" applies to retaliatory discharge claims under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The doctrine concerns evidence of employee misconduct discovered post-discharge. Juan Montiel, Jr.'s estate sued Trico Technologies Corp. for retaliatory discharge after he was fired following a workers' compensation claim; Trico later found Montiel had falsified his employment application. The Court rejected the complete bar approach previously adopted by some Texas courts, opting instead for the doctrine to serve as a limitation on an employee's damages, aligning with McKennon v. Nashville Banner Publ’g Co. The judgment of the court of appeals, which remanded the case to the trial court, was affirmed, with instructions that Montiel’s misconduct should be considered when determining the amount of damages.

After-acquired evidence doctrineRetaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensationEmployment fraudFalsified applicationDamage limitationSummary judgment reversalRemandTexas Supreme CourtEmployee misconduct
References
20
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00066 [179 AD3d 427]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Matter of Katherine U. (Jose U.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order finding Jose U. sexually abused his child, Katherine U., and dismissed the appeal from the fact-finding order. The court upheld the use of closed-circuit television for the child's testimony, balancing the father's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being, as contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel was permitted. An affidavit from the child's social worker sufficiently established that in-court testimony would cause emotional harm. Furthermore, Jose U.'s prior criminal convictions for predatory sexual assault, rape, incest, and sexual abuse, involving the child, collaterally estopped him from contesting the abuse allegations in the family court petition.

Child abuseSexual abuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessChild TestimonyClosed-circuit televisionCollateral EstoppelCriminal ConvictionEvidence Admissibility
References
3
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. ADJ9778324
Regular
Nov 08, 2017

JAIRO RAMOS vs. JTS JOSE TREE SERVICE, INC., JOSE MIGUEL SOTO, DANIEL SOTO, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim where the applicant sustained an admitted industrial injury. The primary issue is determining the identity of the employer(s), with allegations of joint ownership/operation between JTS Jose Tree Service, Inc., Jose Miguel Soto, and Daniel Soto. Jose Soto's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely and procedurally deficient. Daniel Soto's petition was granted because the original findings lacked evidentiary support and the record required further development regarding employment status and potential licensing issues. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJTS Jose Tree ServiceJose Miguel SotoDaniel SotoUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundFindings of FactOrder of DeferralPetition for ReconsiderationJoint EmployersSubstantial Shareholder
References
19
Case No. 08-14-00230-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2015

Lucchese Boot Co., Lucchese, Inc., Jose Angel Velarde, and Jose Angel Valadez v. Hector Rodriguez

This case from the Eighth District of Texas concerns an appeal regarding a motion to compel arbitration. Appellants, Lucchese Boot Company and its employees, sought to enforce an arbitration agreement against former employee Hector Rodriguez in a non-subscriber negligence suit for work-related injuries. The trial court had denied Lucchese's motion to compel arbitration under its Problem Resolution Program. The appellate court examined issues of arbitrability, finding that the trial court retained the power to decide gateway issues due to the agreement's specific exclusions. However, it also determined that the appellants' employees, Velarde and Valadaz, were proper third-party beneficiaries to the arbitration agreement. Ultimately, the Court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that a valid and binding arbitration agreement existed, and Rodriguez's defenses of unconscionability, waiver, and estoppel were not sufficiently established. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's decision.

Arbitration AgreementMotion to Compel ArbitrationEmployment DisputeContract EnforceabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryUnconscionability DefenseWaiverEstoppelGateway IssuesTort Claims
References
35
Case No. 13-94-303-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 1997

Pena, Jose Luis v. State

Jose Luis Peña appealed his disbarment from the practice of law following a disciplinary suit filed by the Grievance Committees for State Bar Districts 12A & 12B. The disciplinary action stemmed from Peña's alleged misconduct in three separate cases, involving the misappropriation of settlement funds from a worker's compensation claim and a wrongful-death case, and failure to refund bond money in an immigration case. Peña raised seven points of error, including challenges to the court's jurisdiction, denial of summary judgment, continuance, new trial, and motion to recuse, as well as claims of insufficient evidence and denial of due process. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling all of Peña's points of error.

DisbarmentAttorney DisciplineProfessional MisconductLegal EthicsAppellate ProcedureJudicial DiscretionMotion for ContinuanceSummary Judgment AppealabilityMotion for New TrialRecusal of Judge
References
10
Case No. 08-18-00041-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2019

Edith Roman v. Jose Luis Rios Ramirez, Sr., Velia Rios Ramirez and Jose Luis Rios Ramirez, Jr.

Edith Roman appealed a default judgment concerning liens she recorded against properties owned by the Rios family. The Court of Appeals applied the law-of-the-case doctrine to Roman's challenge to service of process, which had been decided in a previous mandamus action. The court rejected Roman's arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence for liability and damages under Chapter 12 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Furthermore, the denial of her motion for a new trial was upheld, as the trial court's implied finding was that she did receive the citation. The judgment was modified to reduce the appellate attorney's fees award to conform with the evidence presented.

Default JudgmentService of ProcessLaw-of-the-CaseAppellate Attorney FeesMotion for New TrialPersonal JurisdictionStatutory DamagesFraudulent LiensTexas Court of AppealsEl Paso
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 823 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