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. 02-11-00209-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2012

in the Interest of A.B. and H.B., Children

This case involves an appeal by D.B. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights to his children, A.B. and H.B., after a jury trial. This is the second time the case has been before the court, with the previous judgment also being reversed and remanded. The court finds the evidence factually insufficient to support the termination grounds under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D) and (E), which relate to knowingly placing or allowing children to remain in endangering conditions/surroundings, or engaging in endangering conduct. Specific allegations addressed include H.B.'s failure to thrive, Father's hostile behavior, and the condition of Father's homes. While the court affirms the legal sufficiency of the evidence for termination grounds and the children's best interest, it determines that the factual insufficiency for endangerment necessitates a reversal and remand for a new trial. The dissenting opinion argues that the en banc majority's opinion (A.B. 3) improperly contradicts prior rulings on factual sufficiency.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectPhysical AbuseFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyBest Interest of ChildDomestic ViolencePsychological EvaluationFoster CareTexas Family Law
References
47
Case No. 07-15-00442-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2016

in the Interest of D.E.B., S.B., J.B., Children

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of the mother of D.E.B., S.B., and J.B. The trial court ordered termination of parental rights for S.B. and J.B., but not D.E.B. The mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of S.B. and J.B. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, citing the mother's long history of inability to provide for her children's physical and emotional needs, protect them from danger, and successfully complete court-ordered service plans. The court found that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the best interest finding.

Termination of Parental RightsChild WelfareBest Interest of ChildFamily LawChild NeglectParental UnfitnessSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewDue ProcessTexas Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1994

Hess v. B & B Plastics Division of Metal Cladding, Inc.

Plaintiff Carolyn K. Hess sued her former employer B & B Plastics and her union (Local 686 and UAW) for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged discriminatory firing by B & B Plastics and discriminatory refusal by the union to pursue her grievance. The union defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that Hess's claim against them constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Hess moved to remand the case to state court, arguing her claims were independent state law actions. The court, citing precedent, found that Hess's state law claims against the union were completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to remand those claims to state court was denied, and the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against the employer.

Sex discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Federal preemptionDuty of fair representationMotion to remandFederal question jurisdictionWell-pleaded complaint ruleCollective bargaining agreement
References
14
Case No. 14-09-00222-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

Svetlana B. Poplin v. Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company

Svetlana B. Poplin appealed a take-nothing judgment against Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company regarding denied workers' compensation benefits for her husband's death. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling Poplin was time-barred for failing to serve Amerisure by citation as required by the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court examined whether Texas Labor Code § 410.253(a)(2), which mandates a party seeking judicial review to "serve any opposing party," requires service by citation. The court found that the statute does not explicitly require service by citation, unlike other specific statutes, and that the parties mandated to "serve" cannot serve citation themselves. Therefore, the court concluded that Poplin's certified mail service of her petition was sufficient, reversed the trial court's summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewService of ProcessCitationStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeAppellate ProcedureTimelinessInsurance Carrier
References
9
Case No. 2-03-261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

in the Interest of B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T., Children

This case involves an appeal by a Father and Mother against the trial court's judgment terminating their parental rights to their four children: B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T. Both parents asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination. Father also argued that the trial court's termination order was void due to alleged procedural failures, specifically regarding the one-year deadline for trial and the fourteen-day adversary hearing requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, reviewed these contentions. The court found no merit in the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the endangerment findings and that termination was in the children's best interest, and concluded that the procedural issues raised did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment terminating the parental rights of the Father and Mother.

Parental Rights TerminationIneffective Assistance of CounselChild EndangermentBest Interest of the ChildFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessFamily LawTexas Family CodeTemporary Managing Conservator
References
26
Case No. 03-94-00270-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1995

Leslie B. Hargraves v. Armco Foods, Inc. D/B/A Foodland

Leslie B. Hargraves appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Armco Foods, Inc., d/b/a Foodland. Hargraves filed a lawsuit for damages arising from an accident where she fell on wooden pallets at Foodland. The suit was filed two years and one day after the incident, leading the trial court to grant summary judgment based on the two-year limitations period. Hargraves argued the limitations period should be tolled because she was of 'unsound mind' due to being groggy and disoriented from medication for two days following the accident. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that a minor, drug-induced mental impairment does not meet the criteria for 'unsound mind' as defined in Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.001(a)(2) to toll the limitations period.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionUnsound MindLegal DisabilityDrug-Induced ImpairmentPersonal InjuryTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
14
Case No. 13-12-00498-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2013

Juan Alfredo Martinez v. Arthur Beckwith and Benton Beckwith D/B/A B & B Farms

Juan Alfredo Martinez appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Arthur Beckwith, who was sued alongside Benton Beckwith d/b/a B&B Farms for work-related injuries. Martinez raised three issues on appeal: lack of proper notice for the summary judgment hearing, Arthur Beckwith's alleged waiver of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA) affirmative defense, and an error in granting summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Martinez was not prejudiced by the notice issue, Arthur Beckwith had properly pled his TWCA defense, and summary judgment was appropriate as Beckwith conclusively established his TWCA defense, which Martinez failed to rebut with genuine issues of material fact regarding his employment and insurance coverage.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActAffirmative DefenseAppellate ProcedureNotice RequirementWaiverEmployment LawWork-Related InjuryDue ProcessTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor

Burgio & Campofelice, Inc. (B&C), a general contractor, sought to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing state prevailing benefit supplement laws. This action stemmed from B&C's subcontractor, Shared Management Group, Ltd., allegedly failing to pay union-related benefit funds, leading the DOL to order the withholding of payments to B&C. B&C argued that New York Labor Law §§ 220 and 223, which impose liability on general contractors for subcontractor non-compliance with prevailing wage laws, are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The court reviewed various precedents on ERISA preemption, including GE I and GE II, and concluded that New York Labor Law § 223 is fundamentally linked to § 220, which directly relates to ERISA plans. Therefore, the court found § 223 also preempted by ERISA, granting B&C's motion for summary judgment and denying the DOL's cross-motion.

ERISA preemptionLabor LawPrevailing Wage ActBenefit supplementsGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor defaultPublic works contractSummary judgmentFederal preemptionEmployee benefit plans
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. v. Texas Utilities Electric Co.

Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) sued Metrocom, Inc. d/b/a Whi-teco, and Whiteco Industries, Inc. d/b/a Whiteco (Whiteco) for indemnification of costs incurred after a Whiteco employee was injured by a high-voltage power line. Whiteco appealed a summary judgment granted to TU Electric, claiming immunity under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code section 417.004. The court considered whether this immunity statute precluded TU Electric's right to indemnification under Health and Safety Code section 752.008, which addresses liability for contact with electrical power lines. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the immunity statute does not apply to a suit for indemnity arising from a breach of the statutory duty imposed by the health and safety code.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationStatutory DutyHigh Voltage Power LineSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityHealth and Safety CodeLabor CodeCode Construction ActStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 12,288 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