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

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. 05-12-00223-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2013

Skief, Tiwian Laquinn

Tiwian Laquinn Skief was convicted of murder and sentenced to fifty years in prison. He appealed his conviction, raising four issues, including errors in jury instructions on self-defense, jury contamination, confrontation clause violations, and improper jury argument. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found sufficient evidence to support the self-defense limitation instruction, that Skief failed to preserve his argument regarding jury admonishment, and that his confrontation clause rights were not violated by the admission of an excited utterance to a co-worker. Lastly, Skief failed to preserve his argument concerning improper jury argument.

Murder ConvictionSelf-DefenseJury Charge ErrorConfrontation ClauseExcited UtteranceHearsay ExceptionJury ArgumentAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureConstitutional Rights
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. State

Jimmy Dee Wilson was convicted of murder and sentenced to sixty years' imprisonment for killing Butch Monday, the husband of his long-term mistress, Terri Monday. On appeal, Wilson raised several points of error, including improper statements by the State during closing arguments, failure to exclude witness testimony, sufficiency of the evidence, errors in the trial court's jury charge regarding sudden passion and apparent danger, and the admission of evidence of extraneous offenses or bad acts (telephone harassment, drug sales, treatment of Terri's children, carrying a handgun, and worker's compensation fraud). The appellate court addressed each point, finding no merit in Wilson's arguments. Specifically, it found the State's closing arguments permissible, the witness testimony properly admitted (or error harmless), and the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. The court also determined that the jury charge adequately covered apparent danger and that, while the admission of testimony regarding Wilson selling Vicodin to Terri was erroneous, it did not substantially influence the jury's verdict. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

MurderCriminal AppealSelf-defense ArgumentSudden Passion DefenseJury Argument ProprietyWitness ExclusionEvidence Sufficiency ReviewJury Charge ErrorExtraneous OffensesRule 403
References
41
Case No. 05-19-01331-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2022

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. Victor Quintanilla, Oscar Interiano Rosales and Accident Fund Insurance Company of America

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC appealed a jury finding of negligence after two excavation workers, Victor Quintanilla and Oscar Interiano Rosales, were electrocuted by an energized guy wire at a construction site in Dallas County, Texas. Oncor argued that its Chapter 752 defense, based on the workers' alleged failure to provide notice and safety arrangements before excavation, should bar the claims. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's negligence finding against Oncor. The court also rejected Oncor's challenges to the jury's adverse findings on its Chapter 752 defense, as well as arguments regarding jury charge errors and alleged improper jury argument by appellees' counsel.

Workplace InjuryElectrical HazardNegligence LiabilityHigh Voltage LinesStatutory DefenseJury VerdictAppellate AffirmationConstruction Site SafetyIndependent Contractor LiabilityForeseeability of Harm
References
57
Case No. 63647
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1983

Sharpe v. State

Michael Lee Sharpe appealed a theft conviction, alleging judicial error in a jury comment, denial of impeachment via civil pleadings, a variance in ownership proof, and improper jury argument. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction, ruling that the objection to the jury comment was waived, civil pleadings are generally inadmissible hearsay for impeachment, and the statutory definition of "owner" was met. The court also found no error in the jury instruction on ownership or the prosecutor's closing argument. A dissenting opinion argued that impeachment evidence was improperly excluded and that a fatal variance existed in the proof of ownership.

theftcriminal appealjury commentimpeachmentcivil pleadingsownershipprior inconsistent statementwaiver of errorjury instructionTexas
References
13
Case No. 14-02-00982-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2004

Catherine Taylor, Individually and as Next Friend of Charles Taylor, NCM v. American Fabritech, Inc., Mike Hicks, Sr., and LMS Rentals, Inc.

Catherine Taylor, individually and as next friend of Charles Taylor, NCM, sued American Fabritech, Inc., Mike Hicks, Sr., and LMS Rentals, Inc., for injuries Charles Taylor sustained when he fell through a skylight while working on a construction project. All parties appealed from a final judgment. The court addressed issues regarding expert testimony, jury view, jury argument, mention of insurance, and offsets. The court affirmed the admission of expert testimony, found the jury view not to be harmful error, and that jury argument and mention of insurance did not warrant a mistrial. The judgment was modified to remove an offset for governmental benefits and, as modified, affirmed.

Expert TestimonyJury ArgumentCollateral Source RuleOffsetsGovernmental BenefitsEmployee Benefit PlanConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSkylightPersonal Injury
References
27
Case No. No. 373
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 1968

Sunset Brick & Tile, Inc. v. Miles

Plaintiffs Taft E. Miles et al. brought a personal injury suit against Sunset Brick & Tile, Inc. and Daniel V. Leazer after their vehicle collided with the defendants' truck, which was found to be operating without proper lights or reflectors. The jury determined the defendants were negligent, and a judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants appealed to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi, raising issues concerning the propriety of jury arguments on damages, alleged jury misconduct in calculating awards, and claims of excessive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury arguments or misconduct, and upholding the damage awards as not excessive.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceJury InstructionsDamagesAppellate LawTexas JurisprudenceCivil ProcedureEvidentiary IssuesJury Deliberation
References
41
Case No. 03-19-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2020

Barbara Thompson v. Noah Davis

This is an appeal from a personal-injury lawsuit originally heard in the 423rd District Court of Bastrop County. The appellant, Barbara Thompson, sued the appellee, Noah Davis, following a rear-end collision in November 2015. A jury found Davis negligent and awarded Thompson $5,000 for past medical expenses but zero for future medical expenses, pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment. The district court entered judgment for Thompson totaling $16,901.49. Thompson appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the jury's damage awards and alleging an incurable jury argument by defense counsel. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the jury had discretion in assessing damages given conflicting evidence and credibility issues, and that any improper argument by defense counsel was not incurably harmful.

Personal InjuryRear-end CollisionJury VerdictFactual SufficiencyDamagesMedical ExpensesPain and SufferingMental AnguishJury DiscretionWitness Credibility
References
9
Case No. 03-07-00299-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2008

Gary C. Quintinsky v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

Gary C. Quintinsky appealed a judgment awarding Texas Mutual Insurance Company $5,077,390 in compensatory and $2,500,000 in exemplary damages. Texas Mutual alleged Quintinsky fraudulently induced them to issue policies by misrepresenting his companies' payroll to evade their experience-rating system. The jury found fraud and conspiracy by Quintinsky and his companies, leading to the damages award. The district court denied Quintinsky's post-trial motions. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings, rejecting the contract-only claims argument, and dismissing the incurable jury argument.

FraudInsurance FraudWorkers' CompensationPayroll MisrepresentationExemplary DamagesCompensatory DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsFraudulent InducementAppellate Review
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 6,118 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