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. 05-04-00847-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2006

Oscar Luis Lopez v. LA MADELEINE OF TEXAS

This case involves an appeal by Oscar Luis Lopez against La Madeleine of Texas, Inc., following a personal injury lawsuit where Lopez alleged negligence. During the trial, La Madeleine introduced a surveillance videotape and photos to impeach Lopez's testimony about his injuries, despite intentionally failing to disclose this evidence during discovery. The trial court admitted the evidence, leading to a jury finding of no negligence against La Madeleine. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas, reversed the trial court's final judgment, ruling that the admission of the undisclosed evidence was an abuse of discretion under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6, which mandates exclusion without good cause or lack of unfair surprise/prejudice. The court found La Madeleine failed to meet its burden and the error probably caused an improper judgment. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of Lopez's motion for monetary sanctions. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Discovery AbuseUndisclosed EvidenceTrial by AmbushTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.6Unfair SurpriseUnfair PrejudiceAbuse of DiscretionEvidentiary RulingPersonal InjuryNegligence
References
36
Case No. 03-96-00415-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1997

Workers' Compensation Division, Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Beverly De La Zerda and Rudy De La Zerda

The Workers' Compensation Division, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, appealed a judgment concerning a personal injury suit. Appellee Beverly de la Zerda, a state employee, and Rudy de la Zerda, sued Americlean Concepts after Beverly sustained injuries at work. Following a settlement between the de la Zerdas and Americlean, the trial court issued a final take-nothing judgment. Subsequently, the de la Zerdas moved to allocate the settlement proceeds, a proposal objected to by the Division, which asserted its subrogation interest. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the Division's petition to intervene was untimely as the original final judgment had not been set aside.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryJurisdictionInterventionFinal JudgmentSettlement AllocationSubrogationAppellate ProcedureTimelinessLien
References
6
Case No. 11-19-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Pedro De La Rosa and Angelina De La Rosa v. Basic Energy Services, L.P., by and Through Its General Partner, Basic Energy Services GP, LLC

Pedro and Angelina De La Rosa appealed a trial court's order granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed by Basic Energy Services, L.P. and Basic Energy Services GP, LLC. The De La Rosas alleged intentional injuries to Pedro during a work-related truck accident and subsequent medical interference, plus Angelina's loss of consortium. The Eleventh Court of Appeals determined that the Appellants' claims fell under the intentional-injury exception to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, thereby establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also clarified that election of remedies is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Intentional InjuryWorkers Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionExclusive RemedyElection of RemediesTruck AccidentEmployer LiabilityMedical InterferenceLoss of Consortium
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GURNEY'S INN RESORT & SPA LTD. v. Benjamin

Gurney’s Inn Resort & Spa Ltd. (plaintiff) initiated a declaratory judgment action in state court against its Board members Linda Benjamin, Thomas Carusona, and Christopher Bennett to determine voting rights. Benjamin removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing a lack of complete diversity and non-compliance with the rule of unanimity. The Court applied the 'collision of interests' test, finding that Carusona and Bennett's interests aligned with Gurney's against Benjamin's. Consequently, the Court realigned Carusona and Bennett as plaintiffs, thereby creating complete diversity and excusing the failure to obtain their consent for removal. The Court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand for lack of federal jurisdiction.

Diversity JurisdictionRemand MotionRealignment of PartiesComplete DiversityRule of UnanimityDeclaratory JudgmentBoard of Directors DisputeVoting RightsSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
49
Case No. ADJ2424214 (RIV 0082507)
Regular
Nov 21, 2008

KATI FREEMAN vs. PALA CASINO RESORT & SPA, TRIBAL FIRST

In this workers' compensation case, the employer, Pala Casino Resort & Spa, initially sought reconsideration of a decision finding jurisdiction over their claim, arguing tribal sovereign immunity. Subsequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's claim, determining it lacked jurisdiction. The employer then requested withdrawal of their reconsideration petition, which the Board granted, dismissing the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPala Casino Resort & SpaTribal Firstsovereign immunitytribal jurisdictiongeneral appearancewaiver of immunityfederally recognized Indian tribeadministrative law judgePetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S.A.F. La Sala Corp. v. CNA Insurance Companies

Plaintiffs S.A.F. La Sala Corp. and La Sala Mason Corp. (collectively La Sala) obtained a comprehensive general liability policy from defendant Transcontinental Insurance Co., an affiliate of CNA Insurance Companies. The policy included a composite rate change endorsement establishing a minimum premium of $165,827. Following an audit, the earned premium was determined to be $107,336. Transcontinental refunded La Sala the difference between the estimated and minimum premiums, which was $55,275. La Sala initiated legal action, contending they were owed an additional $58,491, representing the difference between the estimated and earned premiums, and the motion court initially granted summary judgment in their favor. This appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, denying La Sala's motion for summary judgment and granting Transcontinental's cross-motion, ruling that the endorsement clearly mandated the retention of the minimum premium and did not violate New York Insurance Law.

Insurance LawContract InterpretationMinimum Premium ClauseSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentAppellate ReviewPolicy EndorsementEarned PremiumEstimated Premium
References
0
Case No. ADJ977533 (GOL 0101844)
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

VICTOR LEMUS vs. BACARA RESORT & SPA, LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendants, Bacara Resort & Spa and Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, regarding a September 24, 2013 decision. The applicant is Victor Lemus. The defendants have withdrawn their petition for reconsideration. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardBacara Resort & SpaLiberty Mutual Fire Insurance CompanyVictor LemusADJ977533GOL 0101844Van Nuys District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.R. Beadel and Co. v. De La Garza

Joe De La Garza was severely injured while operating a forklift, loading pallets of meat into a truck owned by J.R. Beadel & Company, driven by Everett Lemond. Lemond, believing the loading was complete, drove the truck away from the dock while De La Garza was still inside with the forklift, causing him to fall. De La Garza recovered a judgment in a negligence action, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that De La Garza had no duty to anticipate Lemond's negligent actions and that evidence of workers' compensation benefits, which had ceased prior to trial, was properly excluded for impeachment purposes.

NegligenceForklift AccidentProper LookoutContributory NegligenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEvidence AdmissibilityImpeachmentDuty to AnticipatePersonal InjuryThird-Party Tort-feasor
References
8
Case No. ADJ2834079 (SDO 0293027) ADJ2839895 (SDO 0358837)
Regular
Jun 25, 2009

THUAN CRIM-ROLFE vs. LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB previously ordered Safety National Casualty Insurance Company (SNCC) to reimburse the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) a specific amount for bill review charges. CIGA requested clarification, noting the amount ordered was incorrect. The WCAB affirmed its earlier decision that CIGA is entitled to reimbursement for bill review costs but amended the order nunc pro tunc. The corrected order now states SNCC must reimburse CIGA for bill review charges, with the exact amount to be determined by the parties or the arbitrator.

California Insurance Guarantee AssociationLegion Insurance CompanySafety National Casualty Insurance Companynunc pro tuncclerical errorbill review chargesliquidationcovered claimsreimbursementpetition for reconsideration
References
6
Case No. ADJ2834079 (SDO 293027) ADJ2839895 (SDO 358837)
Regular
Apr 10, 2009

THUAN CRIM-ROLFE vs. LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, in liquidation, by BROADSPIRE, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a dispute over the cumulative trauma period for an applicant's injury and reimbursement of bill review charges. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, affirming the arbitrator's finding of a single cumulative trauma period ending October 9, 2001. However, the WCAB overturned the arbitrator's denial of reimbursement, ruling that CIGA is entitled to recover $768.53 in bill review charges from Safety National Casualty Insurance Company. The WCAB found that CIGA, as a statutorily mandated entity, could recover these costs incurred in administering the claims.

CIGAcumulative traumadate of injurybill review chargescontributionLegion Insurance CompanySafety National Casualty Insurance CompanyLa Costa Resort and Spareconsiderationarbitration decision
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 486 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