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. 06-02-00107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2003

Joseph Vasquez and Guilda Vasquez, Individually and as Next Friends of Their Minor Child, Kraig Vasquez v. Six Flags Houston, Inc., D/B/A Waterworld and Ray Hedden, Individually

Kraig Vasquez, a minor and lifeguard, sustained a broken neck during a test ride at Six Flags Houston. Six Flags' insurer, TIG Premier Insurance, denied workers' compensation benefits, citing horseplay. Vasquez's parents filed common-law negligence and intentional conduct claims against Six Flags and Ray Hedden. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the injury occurred within the scope of employment and was not due to horseplay, thus the Texas Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsIntentional TortHorseplay ExceptionCourse of EmploymentTexas Labor LawAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. 14-06-00325-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2007

Daniel Antonio Aguirre v. Dora G. Vasquez

This case involves an appeal concerning a multi-vehicle collision during a dust storm that resulted in fatalities and injuries to employees and a passenger of Systems Painters, Inc. The injured parties and families of the deceased received workers' compensation benefits and subsequently sued multiple entities, including the estate of their own driver, Jose Ernesto Aguirre. The appellate court addressed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, specifically examining the application of the Workers' Compensation Act's exclusive remedy defense and claims of gross negligence and ordinary negligence. The court affirmed summary judgment on most claims but reversed and remanded the passenger/father's (Daniel Antonio Aguirre) negligence claim against Ernesto's estate for trial.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourse and Scope of EmploymentJudicial AdmissionQuasi-AdmissionNegligence ClaimWrongful Death
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. 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. 04-14-00295-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2015

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Noel Vasquez

Texas Mutual Insurance Company (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and its order to pay income benefits and sanctions to Noel Vasquez (appellee). Vasquez, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, had received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Mutual. After Vasquez reached a settlement with a third party, Texas Mutual ceased benefit payments, prompting Vasquez to file a motion in the trial court seeking to compel benefits and claiming bad faith. Texas Mutual argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Vasquez had not exhausted administrative remedies with the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC). The appellate court agreed, concluding that the DWC has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes and that Vasquez failed to exhaust the required administrative process. Consequently, the appellate court granted Texas Mutual’s plea to the jurisdiction, dismissed Vasquez’s claims, and vacated the trial court’s order.

Subject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionDivision of Workers’ CompensationPlea to the JurisdictionIncome Benefits DisputeTrial Court Order VacatedJudicial Review of Agency DecisionBad Faith ClaimAppellate Court RulingWorkers' Compensation Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1996

People v. Vasquez

This opinion addresses three consolidated appeals (*People v. Vasquez*, *People v. Dalton*, *People v. Adkinson*) concerning the admissibility of hearsay statements from 911 calls under the "present sense impression" and "excited utterance" exceptions. The Court of Appeals clarified the requirements for present sense impressions, emphasizing strict contemporaneity and independent corroboration, and found these criteria were not met in the offers of proof. Specifically, in Vasquez, the 911 call was excluded due to insufficient corroboration, while Dalton's and Adkinson's 911 statements were inadmissible for lacking contemporaneity. The Court affirmed the convictions in Vasquez and Dalton, and modified Adkinson's sentence regarding consecutive counts while otherwise affirming the conviction.

Hearsay RulePresent Sense ImpressionExcited Utterance911 CallsEvidentiary LawCriminal AppealsCorroboration RequirementContemporaneity PrincipleSentencing ModificationIdentification Testimony
References
20
Case No. ADJ2508553
Regular
Jan 06, 2008

JOSE VASQUEZ vs. DONALD J SCHFFER CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration in Jose Vasquez's case against Donald J. Scheffer Construction and State Compensation Insurance Fund (SCIF). The WCAB affirmed the original decision but amended the findings and order regarding SCIF's liability. Specifically, SCIF is now liable for $\$799.75$ to Associated Reproduction Services, Inc. (ARS) for medical-legal expenses and costs, plus a $10\%$ penalty and interest on the medical-legal portion.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONState Compensation Insurance FundSCIFmedical-legal expensesAssociated Reproduction ServicesARSLabor Code section 5811costs
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vasquez v. Six Flags Houston, Inc.

Kraig Vasquez, a lifeguard, suffered a broken neck during a test ride at Six Flags' Waterworld. His employer's insurer denied workers' compensation benefits, alleging horseplay. Vasquez's parents subsequently filed common-law negligence and intentional tort claims against Six Flags Houston, Inc. and lead guard Ray Hedden. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that Vasquez was within the scope of his employment and not engaged in horseplay, thus making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. The court also found insufficient evidence of intentional action by the employer.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimIntentional TortHorseplay ExceptionCourse of EmploymentTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
18
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
Showing 1-10 of 908 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