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. 06-18-0008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2018

William Bradley Lentz, Beverly Lentz, Jason Lentz, M.D., and Rebecca Vanlandingham v. Mewbourne Oil Company and Mewbourne Holdings, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a trial court's grant of summary judgment in a personal injury lawsuit. Plaintiff William Bradley Lentz suffered severe injuries while working on a well operated by Mewbourne Oil Company (MOC). Lentz and his family sued MOC and its parent company, Mewbourne Holdings, Inc., alleging negligence. The trial court sided with the defendants, ruling that MOC was Lentz's "employer" under workers' compensation law and therefore immune from suit due to the exclusive-remedy bar. Appellants argue that Mewbourne Holdings, not MOC, was Lentz's sole employer, and that the trial court erred by not considering inter-company agreements and by misapplying the doctrine of quasi-estoppel.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCorporate VeilRight to ControlQuasi-EstoppelPersonal InjuryOil and GasAppellate Procedure
References
22
Case No. 03-98-00334-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1999

David Brian Keep v. Kathryn Elizabeth Keep

This is an appeal regarding a Final Decree of Divorce between David Brian Keep and Kathryn Elizabeth Keep. The appellant, David Brian Keep, challenged the trial court's division of marital property, award of child support, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's characterization of Kathryn Keep's workers' compensation settlement as separate property and upheld the child support award of $3,000 per month. However, the court reversed the award of a 50% interest in the Plano, Texas, property to Kathryn Keep, as it was deemed David Keep's separate property. Additionally, the court reversed the reimbursement awarded to Kathryn Keep for community funds expended on three separate properties due to a lack of proof of enhancement and also reversed the $5,000 award for appellate attorney's fees. The remainder of the divorce decree was affirmed.

DivorceProperty DivisionChild SupportAttorney's FeesMarital EstateSeparate PropertyCommunity PropertyReimbursement ClaimWorkers' CompensationAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. 2021-05-0570
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2023

Lentz, Michael v. Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Coca-Cola Consolidated, Inc., from a compensation order finding employee Michael Lentz's claim compensable for a right shoulder injury. Lentz sought unauthorized medical treatment, including surgery, after the employer disputed the causation and benefits. The trial court determined the injury was compensable and awarded disability benefits but denied reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses. The Appeals Board affirmed the compensability and disability benefits, but reversed the trial court's denial of stipulated medical expenses, modifying the compensation order to include their reimbursement.

Workers' Compensation AppealShoulder InjuryMedical CausationUnauthorized Medical TreatmentDisability BenefitsMedical ExpensesPanel PhysicianRebuttable PresumptionExpert Medical OpinionOsteoarthritis
References
12
Case No. 14-12-00707-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2012

in Re Kathryn Gauci

Kathryn Gauci filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, seeking to compel Judge Kyle Carter of the 125th District Court of Harris County to set aside orders consolidating her malpractice action with a breach of contract action filed by her former lawyers (the real parties-in-interest) and compelling arbitration. The appellate court denied a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. However, the court ultimately denied Gauci's petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted for orders compelling arbitration or consolidation, as an adequate remedy by appeal typically exists, which Gauci failed to demonstrate was insufficient in this case.

MandamusArbitrationConsolidationAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionExtraordinary RemedyAdequate RemedyTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureLocal RulesAttorney Fees
References
9
Case No. 13-11-00332-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2012

Charlotte Hearn v. Kathryn Snapka

Charlotte Hearn filed a legal malpractice suit against Kathryn Snapka, alleging that Snapka negligently failed to pursue product liability claims in Hearn's underlying personal injury case related to well-differentiated papillary mesothelioma (WDPM) caused by asbestos exposure. The trial court granted Snapka's motion for summary judgment, striking Hearn's expert witness affidavits as speculative and conflicting with legal standards. On appeal, Hearn challenged the trial court's evidentiary rulings and the granting of summary judgment. The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in striking the expert testimony and upholding the summary judgment, partly because Hearn failed to negate all grounds for the ruling.

Legal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentExpert WitnessEvidentiary RulingAbuse of DiscretionAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaCausation StandardsTexas Appellate LawRobinson Hearing
References
52
Case No. M2012-02228-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2013

In Re: Estate of Jane Kathryn Ross

The case involves an appeal from the Probate Court for Davidson County concerning the estate of Jane Kathryn Ross. The trial court had decreed a resulting trust in a house built by Ms. Ross on property owned by her son, Paul Sorace, reasoning that Ms. Ross believed she was an owner and intended a future conveyance or ownership. The Court of Appeals reviewed the principles of resulting trusts, particularly the requirement that the trust must arise at the time of the property's conveyance based on the source of consideration. The appellate court found that Mr. Sorace bought the property in 1991 and was the sole owner, and that improvements to real property do not generally give rise to a resulting trust in the land itself. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that a resulting trust could not be declared based on improvements to real property.

Resulting TrustReal Property LawEquitable RemediesPurchase Money Resulting TrustProperty ImprovementsInter Vivos GiftTestamentary IntentMental CapacityAppellate ReviewProbate Law
References
18
Case No. 09-05-168 CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2005

in Re Zurich American Insurance Company and Kathryn Kuba

The relators, Zurich American Insurance Company and Kathryn Kuba, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate an order assuming jurisdiction over certain claims of real party in interest Arthur Hill and to dismiss his medical dispute claims with prejudice. Hill had filed a suit alleging bad faith in the handling of his worker's compensation claim. The relators argued that Hill failed to timely request medical dispute resolution through the Texas Workers Compensation Commission. The trial court limited Hill's bad faith claims to the extent that any medical bills or treatment sought was disputed by the Defendant on the grounds that Plaintiff's injuries were not compensable or the treatment was not related to the injuries. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for writ of mandamus, stating the relators had not established a 'judicial appropriation of state agency authority'.

Worker's CompensationMandamusBad FaithMedical Dispute ResolutionJurisdictionExhaustion of RemediesCompensabilityAppellate ReviewOriginal ProceedingTexas Court of Appeals
References
1
Case No. 07-21-00008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2021

Jeffrey J. Markey v. Kathryn L. Markey

Jeffrey J. Markey appealed a final divorce decree from Kathryn L. Markey, challenging the child support calculation and the division of community property due to unvalued income tax liabilities. The Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering Jeffrey's earning capacity and various income sources beyond just current earnings for child support. The court also held that it was not an abuse of discretion to divide the community estate without first calculating income tax liability, nor to disregard Jeffrey's estimates for tax liabilities. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

DivorceChild SupportProperty DivisionIncome Tax LiabilityEarning CapacityCommunity EstateAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Family LawMemorandum Opinion
References
11
Case No. 03-11-00275-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2012

Kathryn Nellie Briggs A/K/A Katie Briggs v. State

Kathryn Nellie Briggs was convicted of capital murder for remuneration in the death of Ryan Sullivan. The State alleged she orchestrated the murder to obtain proceeds from Sullivan's life insurance policy, involving co-defendants John Anthony Valdez, Jr. and Kyle James Moesch. On appeal, Briggs challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding her criminal responsibility as a party to the offense and the remuneration element. The court affirmed the conviction, finding ample circumstantial evidence to support the jury's findings, including her deceptive actions, financial motive, and extensive communication with the co-defendants. The court also upheld the denial of her motion to sever, determining she failed to demonstrate a serious risk of prejudice in a joint trial.

Capital murderRemunerationParty to offenseLife insurance fraudCircumstantial evidenceSufficiency of evidenceCo-conspirator exceptionMotion to severHearsayAlias identity
References
23
Case No. 2-03-189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2004

Albertson's, Inc., a Certified Self-Insured v. Kathryn D. Ellis and Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

Albertson's, Inc., a self-insured employer, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment which found a lack of jurisdiction. The trial court had concluded that the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) appeals panel had not rendered a final decision regarding Kathryn D. Ellis's maximum medical improvement (MMI) date and impairment rating (IR), thus preventing judicial review. Albertson's argued the appeals panel's 'affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part' decision constituted a final decision and that a plea to the jurisdiction, not a summary judgment, was the proper procedural vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the TWCC appeals panel's decision was not final, effectively remanding the case for the appointment of a second designated doctor, and that a motion for summary judgment is an appropriate procedural vehicle to raise subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentJurisdictionAdministrative RemediesFinal DecisionImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementDesignated DoctorTexas Labor Code
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 51 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