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. 14-14-00731-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2015

Joseph Pressil v. Jason A. Gibson, Jason A. Gibson, P.C. D/B/A the Gibson Law Firm, Clifford D. Peel, II, and Andrew C. Smith's

Plaintiff Joseph Pressil brought a legal malpractice action against Jason A. Gibson, Jason A. Gibson, P.C. d/b/a The Gibson Law Firm, Clifford D. Peel, II, and Andrew C. Smith (lawyers). Pressil claimed the lawyers were negligent in handling a lawsuit against a fertility clinic for inseminating his former girlfriend, Anetria Burnette, with his sperm without his knowledge or consent, leading to the birth of twins. The trial court granted the lawyers' motion for summary judgment on the professional negligence claim, finding that Pressil could not recover damages from the fertility clinic as a matter of law, nor did the clinic owe him a duty. The lawyers argue for the appellate court to affirm the summary judgment, contending that Pressil cannot legally claim damages for raising healthy children or for mental anguish related to 'dealing with' the children's mother, and that the fertility clinic owed no duty to Pressil, a non-patient sperm donor, under Texas law.

Legal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureDamagesWrongful BirthWrongful PregnancyDuty of CareFertility ClinicSperm DonorConsent
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Georgia Casualty Co. v. Gibson

John Gibson, an employee of Kean Lumber Company, sustained a permanent injury on January 23, 1926, and was awarded workers' compensation for total permanent incapacity by the Industrial Accident Board. The insurer, Georgia Casualty Company, challenged this award, arguing that Gibson was not a covered employee and failed to file a claim within the statutory six-month period. Gibson cross-filed, seeking a more favorable award and presenting a 'good cause' defense for the late filing, citing his illiteracy and repeated assurances from his employer regarding payment. A jury found in favor of Gibson on all special issues, concluding he was a covered employee, suffered total and permanent disability, and had good cause for the delayed claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the submission of special issues or the jury's findings, thereby upholding Gibson's compensation.

Permanent DisabilityIndustrial AccidentInsurance CoverageLate FilingGood Cause ExceptionJury VerdictAppellate ProcedureEmployer PromisesIlliteracyMedical Dispute
References
7
Case No. 09-04-409 CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Antonio J. Villasan, M.D. v. William O'Rourke, Individually Laura O'Rourke, Individually and Laura O'Rourke A/N/F of Brock O'Rourke

This case addresses an appeal by Dr. Antonio Villasan concerning the denial of his motion to dismiss from a medical negligence lawsuit. William and Laura O'Rourke sued Dr. Villasan and the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) for an alleged failure to diagnose cancer. The central legal question involved the interpretation of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 101.106(e), which mandates the dismissal of governmental employees when the governmental unit files such a motion. The Court found that UTMB's motion to dismiss created an irrevocable right to dismiss Dr. Villasan, a right not nullified by the O'Rourkes' subsequent amended pleadings. Additionally, the Court determined that a previously filed federal suit did not negate the applicability of the amended state statute and rejected arguments concerning open courts violations and retroactivity. Consequently, the trial court's order denying Dr. Villasan's dismissal was reversed, and judgment was rendered in his favor, dismissing the claims.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityOfficial ImmunityElection of RemediesProcedural LawStatutory InterpretationCivil Practice and Remedies CodeMedical MalpracticeDismissalAppellate Procedure
References
29
Case No. 2024-60-3877
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

DAVIDSON, JAMES v. GIBSON GUITAR

James Davidson injured his left shoulder while working for Gibson Guitar. Despite a medical referral to an orthopedist, Gibson failed to provide a panel of orthopedists for almost two years and later dismissed an authorized physician's surgery recommendation. The Court found Mr. Davidson is likely to prevail on medical benefits and awarded attorney's fees due to Gibson's unreasonable delays in treatment. However, his request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient proof of wages. Gibson was also referred to the Compliance Program for failing to provide timely medical treatment and a panel of orthopedic physicians.

Medical BenefitsAttorney's FeesTemporary Disability BenefitsShoulder InjuryLabral TearSurgical RecommendationTimely Medical TreatmentCompliance Program ReferralExpedited HearingMedical Causation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibson v. Lockwood Products Division of J.L. Underwood

Plaintiff James T. Gibson was injured on June 12, 1984, while operating a machine at his workplace, Steiner-Liff Textile Products Company, leading to the traumatic amputation of four fingers. He initially sued CNA Insurance Company, his employer's workers' compensation carrier, in March 1985. Through discovery, he identified Lockwood Products as the manufacturer and sued them on June 10, 1985. Lockwood, however, denied manufacturing the machine and identified Loren Cook Company as the manufacturer and R.D. Herbert & Sons as the installer. Gibson then joined Loren Cook Company and R.D. Herbert & Sons as defendants. These new defendants moved to dismiss based on the one-year statute of limitations. The trial court granted the motions to dismiss and Lockwood's motion for summary judgment on January 7, 1986. Gibson appealed the dismissal of Loren Cook Company and R.D. Herbert & Sons. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Gibson failed to exercise due diligence in identifying the actual manufacturer and installer, thus his suit was barred by Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-3-104. The court also clarified that the employer's six-month extension for filing suit under Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-112(d) does not extend to the employee.

Statute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleProducts LiabilityDue DiligenceWorkers' CompensationTort LawPersonal InjuryManufacturer IdentificationAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 03-05-00500-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2009

Marcos Leal and Laura Leal v. McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's Restaurants of Texas, Inc., Both D/B/A McDonald's

Marcos Leal and Laura Leal, husband and wife, sued McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's Restaurants of Texas, Inc. for injuries Laura received after slipping on a wet floor at the McDonald's restaurant where she was employed. The district court granted McDonald's no-evidence motion for summary judgment, arguing the Leals could not produce evidence that McDonald's breached any duty or that McDonald's actions proximately caused Laura's injuries. On appeal, the Leals argued they produced enough evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding their premises liability claim. The Court of Appeals reviewed the summary judgment de novo and affirmed the district court's judgment, finding no evidence that McDonald's had actual or constructive knowledge of the wet floor.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence MotionActual KnowledgeConstructive KnowledgeEmployer LiabilityTexas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation ExemptionProximate Cause
References
16
Case No. W2014-01599-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2015

Mary v. Williams v. Gibson County, Tennessee

Plaintiff Mary V. Williams filed suit against Gibson County, Tennessee, alleging racial discrimination and retaliatory discharge from her employment as an Emergency Medical Technician. The Circuit Court for Gibson County initially granted in part and denied in part the county's motion to dismiss, and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the county, disposing of all claims. Ms. Williams appealed, but the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Jackson, found significant procedural shortcomings in her pro se appellate brief, including failure to cite legal authority or make proper references to the record. Consequently, the appellate court was unable to reach the merits of her appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedurePro Se LitigantUniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights ActAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VIITennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act
References
14
Case No. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laura G. v. Peter G.

This case addresses the paternity and child support obligations of a husband, Peter G., for a child, Alyssa, conceived through artificial insemination during his marriage to Laura G. The separation agreement initially absolved Peter G. of financial responsibility for Alyssa, which the court previously deemed void against public policy. The central issues were whether strict compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 73 for artificial insemination consent was required, and if Peter G. was responsible for child support based on consent or equitable estoppel. The court found that strict compliance with DRL § 73 was not required, and clear and convincing evidence showed Peter G.'s consent to the insemination. Furthermore, the court applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel, citing Peter G.'s actions and representations, and the best interests of the child, to hold him responsible for child support.

Artificial InseminationPaternityChild SupportEquitable EstoppelDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActParental ObligationVasectomySeparation AgreementConsent
References
13
Case No. 03-15-00368-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2015

Laura Pressley v. Gregorio Greg Casar

This election contest case challenges the results of an Austin City Council election, primarily arguing that the County Clerk failed to comply with the Election Code by counting Cast Vote Records (CVRs) instead of maintaining and counting actual ballot images. The appellant alleges numerous other irregularities, mistakes, and violations of the Election Code that, cumulatively, should void the election. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment against Laura Pressley, which is being appealed. The appellant also contests the imposition of sanctions against her and her attorney, asserting procedural errors, lack of plenary power by the court, and insufficient evidentiary basis for the sanctions. Additionally, claims were made regarding the denial of critical discovery and the trial court's failure to review all evidence before granting summary judgment, arguing there was more than a scintilla of evidence to prevent summary judgment and that the sanctions were unjustified.

Election ContestSummary JudgmentSanctionsBallot ImagesCast Vote Records (CVR)Voting MachinesElection IrregularitiesAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas Election Code
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 175 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