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. 04-08-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2009

Daniel M. Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam v. Patrick L. Lewis and Dorisa L. Lewis

This appeal concerns a property dispute over an alleged easement providing water access to Lake Corpus Christi for residents of the Pernitas Point Subdivision. Appellees Patrick L. Lewis and Dorisa L. Lewis claimed an easement by implied dedication across land owned by Appellants Daniel M. Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam. The trial court granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the Lewises, confirming an easement for the benefit of the public and subdivision lot owners. However, the appellate court found that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish donative intent by the original landowners to dedicate the property for public use. The court concluded that mere acquiescence to use by neighbors, without additional factors implying donative intent, was not sufficient to prove an implied dedication. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment that the property is not subject to an easement by implied dedication.

Property LawEasement by Implied DedicationAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentReal Estate DisputeDonative IntentPublic UseLand SubdivisionTexas LawLake Access
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Dam v. Lewis

This appeal concerns a property dispute over an alleged easement providing water access to Lake Corpus Christi for residents of Pernitas Point Subdivision. Appellees Patrick L. Lewis and Dorissa Lewis claimed an easement by implied dedication existed across a portion of land owned by Appellants Daniel Van Dam and Cheryl L. Van Dam. The trial court initially granted a declaratory judgment in favor of the Lewises, confirming the easement. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the evidence legally insufficient to establish an easement by implied dedication. Specifically, the court determined there was insufficient proof of donative intent by the original landowners to dedicate the property for public use, noting that mere acquiescence or limited "owner access" was not enough to meet the heavy burden required.

Easement by Implied DedicationProperty RightsDonative IntentPublic AccessLake Corpus ChristiPernitas Point SubdivisionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceTexas Property Law
References
17
Case No. Docket Entry No. 1, No. 18, No. 22
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Derbera Ann Lewis sought judicial review after an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Appeals Council denied her application for Title XVI supplemental security income (SSI) benefits. Lewis claimed disability due to multiple impairments, including chronic back pain, hypertension, diabetes, and depression. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment from Lewis and the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration. The review focused on whether the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence regarding Lewis's medical condition, subjective complaints, and residual functional capacity. Ultimately, the court denied Lewis's motion for summary judgment, granted the Commissioner's motion, and affirmed the Commissioner's decision to deny benefits, finding it supported by substantial evidence on the record.

Social Security DisabilitySSI BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeSummary JudgmentSubstantial Evidence ReviewMedical ImpairmentsMental Retardation ClaimResidual Functional CapacityVocational Expert TestimonyPsychiatric Evaluation
References
63
Case No. 01-10-00528-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2011

Dallas National Insurance Company v. Edwina Lewis, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Bryant K. Lewis

The Dallas National Insurance Company appealed a trial court's judgment that reversed a Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) appeals panel decision. The TDI panel had found Bryant K. Lewis intoxicated at the time of his death, but the trial court concluded he was not. Bryant, a shuttle bus driver, died in a bus fire, and his workers' compensation claim was initially denied by Dallas National due to alleged intoxication from cocaine. The trial court's decision, relying on lay witness testimony of Bryant's normal behavior and expert testimony regarding the indeterminacy of cocaine's effect from the medical report, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellate court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the trial court's finding that Bryant had the normal use of his mental and physical faculties.

Intoxication DefenseCocaine UseSufficiency of EvidenceLay Witness TestimonyExpert Witness TestimonyAppellate ReviewTrial Court Judgment ReversalMental Faculties AssessmentPhysical Faculties AssessmentTDI Appeals Panel Decision
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Zon

Thomas Lewis, convicted of second-degree robbery, petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the state trial court's ad hoc competency procedure. The trial court heavily relied on a social worker's report, commissioned after the competency hearing, without affording Lewis an opportunity to contest it or cross-examine the social worker. This District Court found that this procedure violated Lewis's Due Process rights, as it constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law requiring a reasonable opportunity to demonstrate incompetence. Given the impossibility of conducting a meaningful retrospective competency hearing due to the lapse of time and limitations of the original record, the court granted the habeas corpus petition. Lewis is to be discharged unless the State elects to retry him within 90 days.

habeas corpusdue processcompetency hearingpsychiatric examinationSixth AmendmentConfrontation Clausestate proceduresfederal lawcriminal prosecutionsecond-degree robbery
References
40
Case No. M2000-01529-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2001

Clarence Lewis v. State

Clarence Eugene Lewis, a prisoner, sustained a severe hand injury while operating a punch press in a prison workshop and sought damages from the State of Tennessee for alleged negligence by his supervisors. The Tennessee Claims Commission dismissed his claim, attributing over 50% of the fault to Mr. Lewis's own negligence. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed the record, assessing the supervisors' duty of care, breach of duty, foreseeability of risk, and causation, finding that while supervisors contributed to the injury by failing to provide proper training and safety measures, Mr. Lewis's act of placing his hand in the machine was the most direct cause. The appellate court affirmed the Claims Commission's finding of comparative fault, upholding the dismissal based on Mr. Lewis being at least 50% responsible for his injury.

PrisonerNegligenceWorkplace InjuryComparative FaultIndustrial AccidentSafety RegulationsDue CareClaims CommissionAppellate ReviewCausation
References
9
Case No. 02A01-9803-CH-00064
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 1999

White's Electric v. Lewis Constr.

This case involves a dispute between White's Electric, Heating, Air and Plumbing (subcontractor) and Lewis Construction Company (general contractor) and Frontier Insurance Company (surety) regarding a public housing renovation project. White's Plumbing sued for unpaid contract payments and damages for delays. The trial court initially awarded White's Plumbing damages for breach of contract and for disruption and delay. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the breach of contract damages, finding that Lewis Construction breached the contract first. However, the court reversed the award for delay damages, determining that White's Plumbing failed to comply with the notice requirements for such claims outlined in the project manual, which was incorporated by reference into the subcontract. The case was also remanded to clarify the authenticity of the contractor's bond.

Construction LawSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Contractor LiabilitySurety BondBreach of ContractDelay DamagesContractual NoticeIncorporation by ReferencePublic Works ProjectAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 11-14-00137-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2014

in Re Lewis Casing Crews, Inc.

Lewis Casing Crews, Inc. (Relator) filed a mandamus proceeding after the trial court denied its motion to designate Diamond D Slickline Service Company, Inc. as a responsible third party in a personal injury case brought by David G. Tinnie (Real Party in Interest). Tinnie, an employee of Diamond D, was injured on a drilling rig and sued Lewis Casing and others for negligence and gross negligence. Lewis Casing sought to designate Diamond D, alleging its negligence contributed to Tinnie's harm. The trial court denied the motion, stating it was 'premature.' The appellate court found the trial court abused its discretion because Lewis Casing's pleadings provided fair notice of Diamond D's alleged responsibility, and 'pre-maturity' is not a valid ground for denial. The court also determined that Lewis Casing lacked an adequate remedy by appeal, as denying the designation would skew proceedings, affect the outcome, and potentially lead to a waste of judicial resources and an inability to seek contribution from the worker's compensation-subscribing employer. Therefore, the appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to vacate its denial and grant the motion for designation.

Mandamus ReliefResponsible Third Party DesignationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodePersonal Injury LawProportionate ResponsibilityClear Abuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy by AppealFair Notice PleadingWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate Procedure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This appeal concerns a worker's compensation proceeding where Avlin P. Lewis sought to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award and claim benefits for a total loss of use of her left arm. The insurance carrier moved for summary judgment, asserting Mrs. Lewis failed to provide timely notice of her injury and file her claim with the Board. The trial court granted this motion, which Mrs. Lewis subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the insurance company successfully demonstrated the employer's lack of timely knowledge regarding the injury, a requirement under Section 4a of Article 8307 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes. Mrs. Lewis admitted not reporting the injury until nearly two years after its occurrence.

Worker's CompensationSummary JudgmentTimely NoticeClaim FilingEmployer KnowledgeTexas LawAppellate DecisionIndustrial Accident BoardLeft Arm InjuryInsurance Carrier
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. State

A prisoner, Clarence Eugene Lewis, working in a prison workshop, suffered a severe hand injury while operating a punch press without safety guards. He filed a claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission, alleging negligence by his supervisors for inadequate training and unsafe equipment. The Claims Commissioner dismissed his claim, finding Mr. Lewis at least 50% responsible for his injuries due to comparative negligence, as he intentionally placed his hand under the press while his foot was on the pedal. This court affirms the Commissioner's decision, agreeing that while the supervisors were negligent in maintaining a safe workplace and providing training, Mr. Lewis's own actions constituted at least 50% of the fault, precluding recovery under Tennessee's comparative fault principles.

Prisoner injuryIndustrial accidentPunch pressNegligence claimComparative faultWorkplace safetyInadequate trainingSafety guardsTennessee Claims CommissionDepartment of Correction
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 189 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