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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Wepfer Marine, Inc. filed a petition to limit liability after Jose Ramon Gonzalez was injured during barge demolition. Gonzalez and his wife, along with Liberty Mutual, sued Wepfer in state court, leading Wepfer to seek federal limitation of liability. Claimants moved to dismiss the federal action, citing lack of admiralty jurisdiction due to the barge's 'dead ship' status and untimeliness of Wepfer's petition. The court granted dismissal for the main barge, ET-715, ruling it was a 'dead ship' withdrawn from navigation. However, it denied dismissal concerning the crane barge, finding potential causation through a broken crane cable, thereby retaining jurisdiction for that aspect. The court also found Wepfer's petition timely, as prior correspondence from claimants did not constitute sufficient written notice to trigger the statutory six-month filing period.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawLimitation of Liability ActVessel StatusDead Ship DoctrineAdmiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)TimelinessWritten Notice of Claim
References
37
Case No. 01-10-00516-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2011

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of special appearances by Waterman Steamship Corporation and Maersk Line, Limited, who were sued for negligence under the Jones Act and general maritime law following a pirate hijacking. The primary legal issue concerned whether the defendants had established sufficient minimum contacts with Texas for the exercise of general personal jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed jurisdiction over Maersk due to its continuous and systematic business activities, including extensive port calls, an interactive website, a dedicated Texas employee, and marketing efforts. Conversely, the court reversed the denial for Waterman, finding its contacts with Texas to be sporadic and fortuitous, thus insufficient to support general jurisdiction, leading to Waterman's dismissal from the litigation.

Interlocutory AppealPersonal JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionMinimum ContactsJones ActMaritime LawSpecial AppearanceTexas Court of AppealsCorporate ContactsPurposeful Availment
References
73
Case No. 03-95-00327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1996

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Crawford Heavy and Marine Construction Limited (Crawford) appealed a district court's order that affirmed a decision by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The dispute arose from a contract for concrete repair on IH-10, where Crawford claimed TxDOT breached the contract regarding repair sites, cement type, traffic control, and delays, seeking over $476,086.00 in damages. An administrative law judge initially recommended a recovery for Crawford, but TxDOT's executive director reduced the award. Crawford then sought judicial review, claiming errors of fact and law and deprivation of property without due process. The appellate court found the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because no specific statute granted jurisdiction for review of TxDOT orders under the Administrative Procedure Act, and Crawford did not demonstrate a vested property right to support a due process claim. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court's order and dismissed the cause for want of jurisdiction.

JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureAdministrative LawContract DisputeGovernmental ImmunityDue ProcessVested RightsSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
28
Case No. 14-16-00933-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves an appeal by Central Petroleum Limited, an Australian company, against the denial of its special appearance in a Texas lawsuit filed by Geoscience Resource Recovery, LLC (GRR). GRR sued Central for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and fraudulent misrepresentation related to an agreement to find a farmout partner for Central's petroleum rights. Central contested personal jurisdiction, arguing the alleged "Second Agreement" with a Texas forum-selection clause was unauthorized, fabricated, and incomplete. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding sufficient evidence of Central's purposeful availment of Texas law through its agent's apparent authority to sign the contract and a substantial connection between Central's Texas contacts and GRR's tort claims. The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction would not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Special AppearancePersonal JurisdictionBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitFraudulent MisrepresentationForum-Selection ClauseChoice-of-Law ProvisionApparent AuthorityCorporate AgentOil and Gas
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. 13-0096
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the Medical Liability Act's ten-year statute of repose. Petitioners, Tenet Hospitals Limited and Michael D. Compton, M.D., sought summary judgment arguing the statute barred a medical negligence claim filed by Elizabeth Rivera on behalf of M.R. The alleged negligence occurred in 1996, and the suit was filed in 2011, five years after the 2003 repose statute's 2006 deadline. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding the statute unconstitutional as applied to M.R. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Rivera, acting as M.R.'s next friend, failed to demonstrate due diligence in filing the claim within the three-year grace period afforded by the statute. The Court also found the retroactivity challenge failed due to the compelling public interest in the Medical Liability Act and the sufficient grace period provided. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that the plaintiff take nothing.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of ReposeOpen Courts ProvisionRetroactivityDue DiligenceMinor's ClaimConstitutional LawSummary JudgmentTexas Supreme CourtHealthcare Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1985

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves an appeal concerning personal jurisdiction over Parthenon Insurance Company. The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to reargue and renew opposition to Parthenon's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion to reargue and renew, and subsequently denying Parthenon's motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing for limited discovery on the jurisdictional issue. The central legal question is whether Parthenon, a 'captive' insurer for Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) and its subsidiaries, which conduct business in New York, is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York State. The court found that enough evidence was presented to warrant discovery to establish jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityParent CompanyInsurance CoverageMotion to DismissDiscoveryAppellate ReviewCPLRCaptive Insurer
References
4
Case No. 2-06-472-CV, 2-07-048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2009

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Gerald W. Haddock filed a consolidated interlocutory appeal and mandamus proceeding challenging a trial court's order staying arbitration. Haddock initiated arbitration against William F. Quinn, Paul E. Rowsey, III, John Goff, Terry N. Worrell, Crescent Real Estate Equities Company (CEI), Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited Partnership (CREELP), and Crescent Real Estate Equities, Limited (CREE) after previously litigating related claims in court. The core issue was whether Haddock waived his right to arbitration by substantially invoking the judicial process in a prior lawsuit concerning his options and alleged mismanagement by the Crescent Entities. The court determined it had jurisdiction to decide the waiver issue, rejecting Haddock's argument that the incorporation of AAA rules delegated this to an arbitrator. The court found that Haddock's extensive litigation, including seeking injunctive relief and summary judgment in the prior suit, constituted a substantial invocation of the judicial process. This prejudiced the defendants by forcing them to incur significant expenses. Consequently, the court held that Haddock waived his right to arbitrate these claims. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus and dismissed the interlocutory appeal for want of jurisdiction.

ArbitrationWaiverJudicial ProcessFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationPrejudiceLitigation ConductOption ClaimsSeverance AgreementLimited Partnership Agreement
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Peter Schwartz, a seismic gun mechanic, was recruited by Seistech Offshore to work in Texas and was subsequently injured in Ingleside, Texas, during the outfitting of a vessel. Schwartz filed an admiralty tort case against Seistech Offshore, Geo Marine Limited, and Petro-Tech Peruana, S.A., alleging negligence, unseaworthiness, and other claims. Seistech Offshore moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing insufficient contacts with Texas. The Court denied Seistech's motion, finding that specific jurisdiction existed because Seistech purposefully availed itself of conducting activities in Texas. The Court also concluded that requiring Seistech to litigate in Texas comported with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Additionally, the Court held that Seistech had waived its personal jurisdiction defense by asserting it in a dilatory manner on the eve of trial.

Personal JurisdictionAdmiralty LawTort LawNegligenceUnseaworthinessSafe Place to WorkLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActGross NegligenceMotion to DismissDue Process
References
17
Case No. 13-09-00277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2010

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order granting special appearances for the appellees. Appellants, Homero Eduardo Falcon Martinez and Falrey, S.A. de C.V., brought suit against the appellees, alleging various claims stemming from a coal mining operation in Mexico. The appellants contended that the trial court erred in its ruling, arguing that the appellees had failed to negate all jurisdictional bases and that both specific and general personal jurisdiction over them was proper. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the non-resident appellees lacked sufficient contacts with Texas to establish either specific or general personal jurisdiction. The court also found that the appellants did not successfully prove their theories of agency or alter ego to impute contacts to the appellees.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsGeneral JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionPurposeful AvailmentAlter Ego TheoryAgency RelationshipBreach of ContractFraud
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 8,200 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