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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
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
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. 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. 14-15-00882-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2015

in the Interest of K.I.B.C., a Child

This is an appellant's brief challenging the termination of parental rights of C.B. to her child, K.I.B.C. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) initiated the case due to concerns about neglectful supervision and domestic violence. After an initial conservatorship order, the trial court later terminated C.B.'s parental rights based on Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(E) and (O). C.B. argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination grounds and that the termination was not in K.I.B.C.'s best interest, requesting a reversal and remand.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareFamily Law AppealLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceDomestic ViolenceParental Mental HealthNon-compliance with Service PlanChild's Best InterestTexas Family Code 161.001
References
21
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

In the Interest of C.M.D.

LDS Family Services, a private adoption agency, appealed a trial court's sua sponte ruling that Texas Family Code section 161.002(b) is unconstitutional. This section allows for termination of parental rights without notice if an alleged father does not register with the paternity registry or take other steps to protect his rights. The case involved C.M.D., whose mother sought adoption and provided an affidavit indicating the father had not shown interest or support. The trial court deemed the statute unconstitutional on due process and equal protection grounds. The appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that the trial court's determination of unconstitutionality was not supported by the evidence, as no actual injury was shown to the unnamed father in this specific case, and an absence of evidence cannot overcome the presumption of constitutionality.

Adoption LawParental Rights TerminationPaternity RegistryConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationTexas Family CodeUnwed Fathers
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 13,151 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