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. 13-02-361-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

in the Interest of A.G. & D.G., Minors

Cindy Mahoney Arnold appealed a trial court's decision regarding child support calculations for her two children, A.G. and D.G., whose paternity was admitted by Abraham Garcia, III. Arnold argued that the trial court erred by not including Garcia's workers' compensation payments when determining his net resources for child support. The appellate court reviewed the Texas Family Code, specifically Section 154.062(a) and (b)(5), which explicitly includes workers' compensation benefits as part of resources. The court found that the trial court's exclusion of these benefits directly contravened the family code's instructions and constituted an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Child SupportPaternityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNet ResourcesAbuse of DiscretionTexas Family CodeAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorFinancial CalculationRemand
References
8
Case No. 01-15-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2015

in the Interest of A.G. and F.G., Children

This is an appellant's brief appealing the termination of parental rights for children A.G. and F.G., involving S.F. (mother) and the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). DFPS intervened after reports of child neglect, including F.G. found unsupervised. The mother, S.F., has a history of mental health issues (depression, bipolar disorder), marijuana use, and unstable housing, and allegedly failed to comply with court-ordered service plans. The trial court terminated her parental rights under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(D), (E), (L), and (O), also finding it to be in the children's best interest. The appellant argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination and the 'best interest' finding, emphasizing A.G.'s expressed desire against termination and potential instability in the children's current kinship placement with their godmother.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectInsufficient EvidenceBest Interest of ChildSubstance AbuseMental Health IssuesKinship PlacementDomestic RelationsTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. NO. 01-08-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2009

Troy J. Shuttleworth v. G & a Outsourcing, Inc. D/B/A G & a Partners

This case involves an appeal by Troy Shuttleworth, Questco, Inc., and U.S.A. Staffing, Inc. (the 'Shuttleworth Defendants') against G&A Outsourcing, Inc. d/b/a G&A Partners ('G&A') regarding a temporary injunction. G&A, a professional employer organization, sued Shuttleworth, a former sales representative, for breaching an employment agreement's non-compete/non-solicitation provision and misappropriating confidential information after he resigned to work for U.S.A. Staffing and Questco. G&A sought injunctive relief and damages in Harris County, while the Shuttleworth Defendants argued the Harris County trial court lacked jurisdiction, citing Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 65.023(a). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that section 65.023(a) did not apply because G&A's request for injunctive relief was ancillary to its claims for substantial damages arising from breach of contract and tortious acts. Thus, the temporary injunction entered by the trial court was upheld.

Non-compete agreementNon-solicitationTemporary injunctionBreach of contractMisappropriation of trade secretsTortious interferenceVenueJurisdictionTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeEmployment agreement
References
6
Case No. ADJ10146503
Regular
Oct 20, 2018

ALAN KOON vs. RZ PLUMBING, INC.; AMTRUST

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to applicant's attorney, Robert Rassp, pursuant to Labor Code section 5801. The Second District Court of Appeals had previously remanded the matter for this purpose. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed Rassp's request for 13.25 hours of work and $865.59 in costs, totaling $6,165.59. The Board disallowed two hours of travel time due to lack of clarity on the reasonableness and nature of the activity. Ultimately, the Board awarded Rassp a total of $5,365.59 in attorney's fees and costs.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feescostsremandWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardbill of particularsreasonableness of feestravel time deductionawarded amounttrial level return
References
0
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. 02-13-00029-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Brenda Lund, in Her Individual Capacity, and Kristin Alrick, in Her Individual Capacity v. Eric and Ruth Giauque, Individually and as Next Friend of H.G., N.G., M.G., C.G., and B.G., Minor Children

Brenda Lund and Kristin Alrick, appellants, appealed the denial of their motion to dismiss claims brought by Eric and Ruth Giauque, appellees. The Giauques sued Lund and Alrick for negligence related to the placement of children for adoption, arguing that Section 101.106(f) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code violated the open-courts provision of the Texas Constitution. The appellate court, referencing prior supreme court cases, determined that the legislature's enactment of Section 101.106(f) was a reasonable exercise of its police power, serving the societal goal of limiting claims against individual governmental employees. Consequently, the court found no open-courts violation, reversed the trial court's order, and dismissed the Giauques' claims against Lund and Alrick.

Governmental ImmunityOpen Courts ProvisionTexas ConstitutionCivil Practice and Remedies Code Section 101.106(f)Motion to DismissNegligenceGross NegligenceAdoption CaseworkerAdoption SupervisorScope of Employment
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dugandzic v. New York City School Construction Authority

Mirolsav Dugandzic, a painter, sued multiple defendants, including the NYCSCA, Trataros Construction, and Crowe Construction, after slipping on paint remover at Fort Hamilton High School in 1992. He alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), and Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the accident was due to his work, they lacked notice of a dangerous condition, and no Labor Law violation. The court found the motions timely and dismissed the Labor Law section 241(6) claim, as the Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d) was deemed inapplicable to the plaintiff's self-created slippery condition. However, the court denied the dismissal of the Labor Law section 200 claim against some defendants, citing a factual dispute over supervisory control. The City's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims against it due to a lack of evidence of its supervision or control.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetySummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimConstruction Site AccidentSlippery FloorEmployer LiabilitySupervisory ControlHazardous Materials
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Messina v. City of New York

Plaintiff Thomas Messina, an electrician, sustained leg injuries after stepping into an unguarded drainpipe hole while working at Yankee Stadium. He and his spouse filed a lawsuit against the City of New York and the New York Yankees, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). Initially, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim but later reversed its decision upon reargument, deeming the nature of the drainpipe hole a factual question for the jury. However, the appellate court reversed this ruling, clarifying that the interpretation of an Industrial Code regulation is a matter of law. The court concluded that the drainpipe hole, approximately 12 inches in diameter and 7-10 inches deep, did not constitute a "hazardous opening" under 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b), thereby entitling the defendants to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Construction site accidentDrainpipe holeHazardous openingSummary judgmentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (b) (1)Falling hazardsAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationQuestion of law vs. fact
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2001

Padilla v. Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corp.

This case involves a plaintiff, a laborer, who suffered an injury while working on a renovation project for Frances Schervier Housing Development Fund Corporation, whose construction manager was Humphreys & Harding, Inc. The plaintiff was guiding a concrete sump housing into an excavation vault when it slipped, amputating two toes. The plaintiff initiated an action against the owner, alleging violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and specific Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR part 23). The owner, in turn, filed a third-party action against Humphreys & Harding for indemnification. The motion court initially dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, but on appeal, the decision was reversed. The appellate court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently raised triable issues of fact regarding violations of Industrial Code sections 23-9.2 (g), 23-9.4 (e) (1) and (2), and 23-9.2 (b) (2), which were concrete enough to support a claim under Labor Law § 241 (6).

Construction accidentLabor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code violationsSummary judgment appealAppellate reviewNondelegable dutyTriable issues of factPersonal injuryConstruction site safetyBackhoe operation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 12,716 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