Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 01-11-00668-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 23, 2012

Juan Garcia v. Azz Incorporation

Juan Garcia sued his former employer, AZZ Incorporated, for negligence and gross negligence following multiple workplace injuries. AZZ sought summary judgment, asserting the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act as a bar, arguing Garcia was covered by their workers' compensation policy. Garcia countered with quasi-estoppel, claiming AZZ prevented him from accessing medical care. The appellate court found AZZ had established its exclusive remedy defense and rejected Garcia's quasi-estoppel argument, noting it is not a recognized exception to the Act's provisions regarding notice of coverage. Consequently, the trial court's summary judgment in favor of AZZ was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyNegligenceGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentQuasi-EstoppelWorkplace InjuryTexas Appeals CourtEmployer LiabilityAffirmative Defense

References

Case No. 01-18-00733-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 08, 2019

Jesus Garcia v. MTZ Trucking, Inc.

Jesus Garcia, an employee of MTZ Trucking, Inc., appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of MTZ Trucking in his suit for negligent training and supervision and gross negligence. Garcia was injured when his end-dump truck, while delivering product on a third party's premises, came into contact with a live power line. He alleged that MTZ Trucking failed to train and supervise him on operating the truck and avoiding electrical wires, despite his prior experience. MTZ Trucking argued it owed no such duty, asserting Garcia was a seasoned driver and the dangers of power lines are common and obvious. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, holding that an employer does not owe a duty to warn or train an employee about hazards that are commonly known or already appreciated, which included the dangers of operating an end-dump truck near overhead electrical wires.

Summary judgmentNegligent trainingNegligent supervisionGross negligenceEmployer dutiesNon-subscribing employerWorkers' Compensation ActOpen and obvious hazardEnd-dump truckElectrical wires

References

Case No. 2007-3856

Regular Panel Decision

FERNANDO GARCIA v. MVT Services, Inc.

The case involves Jesus Fernando Garcia and Maria de Lourdes Garcia (Plaintiffs) suing MVT Services, Inc. (Defendant) and other entities for the wrongful death of their son. The Plaintiffs initially filed in Texas state court, but the case was removed to federal court by MVT Services. The core issue is the timeliness of the removal by MVT Services. The Court found that MVT Services received "other paper" (a settlement agreement with the non-diverse defendant in October 2007 and a demand letter for $750,000) that made the case removable much earlier than its May 2008 removal. Consequently, the Defendant's removal was deemed untimely, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand was granted, returning the case to state court. The request for attorneys' fees was denied.

Motion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyNon-diverse PartiesVoluntary Act of PlaintiffOther Paper RuleFederal Question JurisdictionState Court ActionWrongful Death

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Juan V. Garcia sued Aetna Casualty & Surety Company for workers' compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law after being injured during his employment. Garcia appealed the court's decision, which limited him to a fifteen percent partial incapacity instead of the twenty-five percent partial incapacity found by the jury. The appellate court agreed that Garcia's pleading for total incapacity for eight weeks was broad enough to cover the jury's finding of twenty-five percent partial incapacity. Consequently, the judgment was reformed to award Garcia compensation for a twenty-five percent incapacity for eight weeks. Additionally, Garcia complained that he was not allowed to explain that he worked out of economic necessity post-accident, but the court found this exclusion harmless as similar evidence was presented.

Workmen’s Compensation LawPartial IncapacityEconomic NecessityJury FindingsJudgment ReformAppellate ReviewInjury CompensationPleading SufficiencyHarmless ErrorEmployment After Injury

References

Case No. 08-04-00179-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 25, 2005

Francisco Garcia, Individually and as Next Friend of Francisco Garcia, Jr., and Kevin Garcia, Minor Children v. J. J. S. Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A/ PDQ Drive-In Grocery

Francisco Garcia, individually and as next friend for his minor children, Francisco Garcia, Jr. and Kevin Garcia (the Garcias), appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc. (J.J.S. Enterprises). The case originated from the death of Rosario Michelle Garcia, who died during a robbery at her employer, PDQ Drive-In Grocery. Mrs. Garcia, a cashier, pursued a shoplifter against company policy, fell from a moving vehicle, and was fatally injured. The Garcias filed a wrongful death suit alleging negligence, but J.J.S. Enterprises moved for summary judgment citing a pre-injury waiver. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling the pre-injury waiver valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' lawsuit.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentPre-Injury WaiverOccupational Accident PlanNon-Subscriber EmployerTexas LawPublic PolicyFair NoticeActual Knowledge

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc.

The Garcias, family of Rosario Michelle Garcia, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc., their employer, following Mrs. Garcia's death during a robbery at her workplace. Mrs. Garcia died after pursuing a shoplifter, contrary to company policy, and was run over by a fleeing vehicle. The Garcias brought a wrongful death suit, alleging employer negligence, while J.J.S. Enterprises asserted unforeseeability, lack of proximate cause, and a pre-injury waiver. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that the pre-injury waiver Mrs. Garcia signed was valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' negligence claims. This decision upheld that such waivers, made before June 17, 2001, are not against public policy under Texas law if the employee had actual knowledge of the waiver's terms.

Wrongful DeathNegligence ClaimSummary JudgmentPre-injury WaiverEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanOccupational AccidentNon-subscriber EmployerPublic PolicyExpress Negligence DoctrineFair Notice Requirements

References

Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08791 [178 AD3d 473]

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 10, 2019

Garcia v. SMJ 210 W. 18 LLC

Plaintiff Juan Garcia was injured when struck by a falling piece of DensGlass while working on a temporary exterior platform on the 21st floor of a building under construction. He was dismantling a bridge linked to an exterior hoist elevator when the material, matching a missing piece from the floor above, struck him. The court reversed the lower court's decision, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that the exterior facade was incomplete and workers were performing patch work above. Additionally, the court denied the defendants-respondents' cross motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the necessity of overhead protection in an area exposed to falling objects.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyOverhead ProtectionBuilding Under Construction

References

Case No. 13-99-032-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 08, 2000

Garcia, Roel v. Allen, William Stuart, Hector Mario Garcia, and Hoechst Celanese Corp.

Roel Garcia, an analyzer technician for Hoechst Celanese Corporation, was terminated in 1997 following a knee surgery that resulted in permanent work restrictions. Garcia subsequently filed suit against Celanese and his supervisors for disability discrimination, negligence, fraud, defamation, and workers' compensation retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Celanese on all claims, prompting Garcia's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Celanese did not owe the alleged duties for negligence, that the defamatory statements were true, that Garcia did not meet the definition of 'disabled' under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, and that no causal link was established for the workers' compensation retaliation claim. The court also upheld the denial of Garcia's motion for a new trial.

Disability DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationNegligence ClaimDefamation ClaimSummary Judgment AppealAt-Will EmploymentPermanent Work RestrictionsKnee InjuryEmployer LiabilityMedical Evaluation Report

References

Case No. 13-13-00463-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 10, 2013

the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. John Doe

John Doe sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleging sexual assault by Eustacio Munioz and seeking damages based on vicarious and direct liability theories. The Church moved for summary judgment, asserting the claims were time-barred. The trial court denied the motion without stating its reasons. The Church petitioned the Court of Appeals for a permissive interlocutory appeal, arguing controlling questions of law regarding the statute of limitations and tolling doctrines like duress and continuing tort. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that the absence of a substantive ruling by the trial court prevented the identification of a clear controlling question of law, thus failing to meet the requirements for a permissive appeal.

Permissive appealInterlocutory orderSummary judgmentStatute of limitationsTollingDuressContinuing tort doctrineControlling question of lawAppellate procedureTexas law

References

Case No. 533993

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia (Garcia (dec'd), Miguel)

Claimant Francisca Garcia appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision disallowing her claim for death benefits. Her spouse, Miguel Garcia, a World Trade Center volunteer, died in 2016 from conditions established in his prior workers' compensation claim. Garcia filed for death benefits in 2020, which the Board ruled untimely under Workers' Compensation Law § 28. The Board also determined that Workers' Compensation Law Article 8-A did not apply to a death benefits claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that Article 8-A's exception to the two-year filing rule applied to the participant's disablement claim, not to a separate death benefits claim filed by a non-participant, thus the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 28. A dissenting opinion argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 163, by mentioning "injury or death," indicated Article 8-A's applicability to death benefits, suggesting the matter be remitted to address causation and timely filing.

Death Benefits ClaimWorld Trade Center VolunteerWorkers' Compensation Law § 28TimelinessStatutory InterpretationArticle 8-ALatent ConditionsPosttraumatic Stress DisorderGastroesophageal Reflux DiseaseObstructive Sleep Apnea

References

Showing 1-10 of 966 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 01-11-00668-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 23, 2012

Juan Garcia v. Azz Incorporation

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyNegligenceGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentQuasi-EstoppelWorkplace InjuryTexas Appeals CourtEmployer LiabilityAffirmative Defense

References

Case No. 01-18-00733-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 08, 2019

Jesus Garcia v. MTZ Trucking, Inc.

Summary judgmentNegligent trainingNegligent supervisionGross negligenceEmployer dutiesNon-subscribing employerWorkers' Compensation ActOpen and obvious hazardEnd-dump truckElectrical wires

References

Case No. 2007-3856

Regular Panel Decision

FERNANDO GARCIA v. MVT Services, Inc.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Workmen’s Compensation LawPartial IncapacityEconomic NecessityJury FindingsJudgment ReformAppellate ReviewInjury CompensationPleading SufficiencyHarmless ErrorEmployment After Injury

References

Case No. 08-04-00179-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 25, 2005

Francisco Garcia, Individually and as Next Friend of Francisco Garcia, Jr., and Kevin Garcia, Minor Children v. J. J. S. Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A/ PDQ Drive-In Grocery

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentPre-Injury WaiverOccupational Accident PlanNon-Subscriber EmployerTexas LawPublic PolicyFair NoticeActual Knowledge

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc.

References

Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08791 [178 AD3d 473]

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 10, 2019

Garcia v. SMJ 210 W. 18 LLC

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyOverhead ProtectionBuilding Under Construction

References

Case No. 13-99-032-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 08, 2000

Garcia, Roel v. Allen, William Stuart, Hector Mario Garcia, and Hoechst Celanese Corp.

References

Case No. 13-13-00463-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 10, 2013

the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. John Doe

Permissive appealInterlocutory orderSummary judgmentStatute of limitationsTollingDuressContinuing tort doctrineControlling question of lawAppellate procedureTexas law

References

Case No. 533993

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Francisca Garcia (Garcia (dec'd), Miguel)

References

Showing 1-10 of 966 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.