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. 03-03-00438-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2004

Wesco Distribution, Inc. v. Westport Group, Inc.

Wesco Distribution, Inc., a materialman, appealed a district court's judgment granting Westport Group Inc.'s (general contractor) motion for summary judgment to remove a materialman's lien and awarding Westport attorney's fees. Wesco had supplied materials to J&D Electric, a subcontractor, but was not fully paid. Wesco attempted to send notice of a materialman's lien to Westport, but the initial mailing lacked sufficient postage and was returned, delaying proper notice. Westport had already paid J&D Electric almost everything owed by the time it received Wesco's notice. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that Wesco's initial attempt to mail notice with insufficient postage did not constitute timely notice under the Texas materialman’s lien statute, and thus the lien was invalid. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to Westport.

Materialman's LienNotice RequirementsStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesTexas Property CodeInsufficient PostageTimelinessSubstantial ComplianceAppellate Review
References
75
Case No. 03-18-00282-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2019

Yvette Mata v. Capitol Wright Distributing, LLC Dalton Marek And Wright Distributing Co., Inc.

Yvette Mata appealed the district court's dismissal of her personal injury suit against Capitol Wright Distributing, LLC, Dalton Marek, and Wright Distributing Co., Inc. for want of prosecution. She contended that the district court provided inadequate notice of its intent to dismiss and erred in denying her motion to reinstate the case. The appellate court found that Mata was presumed to know Williamson County's local rules requiring a motion to retain, thus deeming the dismissal notice adequate. Furthermore, the court determined that any potential due process issues were rectified by the post-dismissal hearing on Mata's motion to reinstate. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Mata failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in prosecuting her case.

Personal injurydismissal for want of prosecutionmotion to reinstateappellate reviewdue diligenceinadequate noticeabuse of discretionTexas Rules of Civil Procedurelocal court rulesappellate procedure
References
19
Case No. 01-03-00753-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

Joseph Earl Cavender v. Houston Distributing Co., Inc.

Joseph Earl Cavender sued Houston Distributing Company, Inc. for wrongful termination, alleging a violation of Texas Labor Code section 451.001 after his employment was terminated due to an absence exceeding 180 consecutive days while on workers' compensation leave. A jury ruled in favor of Houston Distributing, and the trial court issued a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, Cavender contended his termination violated the Texas Labor Code as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing Texas Supreme Court precedent that uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge, even when the absence is related to a workers' compensation claim.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAbsence Control PolicyTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployment LawJury VerdictAffirmed JudgmentEmployer Policy
References
2
Case No. 01-04-01088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd. Universal Computer Services, Inc. And Dealer Computer Services, Inc. v. Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc. ADP, Inc., Business Solutions, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., and SMC Luxury Cars, Inc.

This trade secrets case involves Appellants Universal Computer Systems, Inc. (UCS) and Appellees Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc., ADP, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., SMC Luxury Cars, Inc., and Business Solutions, Inc. (collectively DSI). The parties had a dispute regarding trade secret misappropriation and a breach of a license agreement, which they agreed to arbitrate. The trial court confirmed the arbitrators' decision, which UCS appealed, alleging improper discovery orders and 'gross mistakes' by the arbitrators. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's confirmation, finding that any error in the trial court's discovery order was ameliorated by the arbitrators' full consideration of evidence, and that UCS failed to demonstrate gross mistake in the arbitration decision.

Trade secretsArbitrationDiscovery sanctionsArbitration awardCopyright preemptionSoftware licensingConfidentiality agreementBreach of contractGross mistakeTexas General Arbitration Act
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Limestone Products Distribution, Inc. v. McNamara

This case involves a fatal collision between Coy Mathis's car and Tom McNamara's motorcycle. McNamara's survivors sued Mathis and Limestone Products Distribution, Inc., alleging Mathis's negligence. The central issue was whether Mathis was an independent contractor or an employee of Limestone, and if an employee, whether he was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Limestone, but the court of appeals reversed. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the summary-judgment evidence conclusively proved Mathis was an independent contractor at the time of the accident, thus Limestone was not liable for his negligence.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusCourse of EmploymentSummary JudgmentNegligenceVicarious LiabilityRight to Control TestMotor Vehicle AccidentFatal InjuryAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 03-98-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1999

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. the Miles Group, Inc. Rudolph Miles & Sons, Inc. Miles Transportation/Distribution, Inc. Miles Dada, Inc. RM Personnel, Inc. Rudolph Miles Warehouse, Inc. Precision Personnel Services, Inc., D/B/A/ Precision Temporary Services

This case involves an appeal where the parties filed an agreed motion after oral arguments. The original trial-court judgment had dismissed the cause for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction without prejudice. The parties requested that the Court of Appeals reverse this judgment and remand the case for the rendition of an agreed judgment, which would dismiss the claims with prejudice. The appellate court, based on the settlement reached between the parties and without assessing the merits of the appeal, granted their request. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for the implementation of the judgment as per the parties' agreement.

Agreed MotionReversalRemandSettlementJurisdiction DismissalWorkers' Compensation InsuranceAppellate CourtTexas Court of AppealsAgreed JudgmentDismissal with Prejudice
References
0
Case No. 03-07-00551-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2009

Apollo Enterprises, Inc. and WorkingRx, Inc. v. ScripNet, Inc.

This appeal addresses the exclusive jurisdiction of the Texas Division of Workers' Compensation over disputes concerning payments from workers' compensation insurance carriers to pharmacies. Appellants Apollo Enterprises, Inc. and WorkingRx, Inc. (WorkingRx) challenged the dismissal of their tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims against Appellee ScripNet, Inc., a pharmacy benefits manager. The district court had dismissed all claims based on the Division's exclusive jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims directly involving incorrect U&C estimates and the erroneous application of ScripNet contract rates, classifying these as medical fee disputes. However, the court reversed and remanded claims asserting that ScripNet tortiously caused pharmacies to enter contracts with ScripNet and diverted reimbursement claims, concluding these did not constitute medical fee disputes subject to the Division's exclusive jurisdiction.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive JurisdictionMedical Fee DisputesPharmacy Benefits ManagementTortious InterferenceCivil ConspiracyContract LawStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2015

Matter of Mangan v. Try-It Distributing Co., Inc.

In 2000, Tracy Mangan, an employee of Try-It Distributing Co., Inc., suffered a work-related back injury. He was later classified with a permanent partial disability, and liability for his claim was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. His average weekly wage was established at $813.49. Mangan passed away in July 2012 due to complications from causally-related back surgery. Subsequently, his widow, the claimant, filed a claim for death benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially determined that benefits should be calculated based on the decedent's average weekly wage at the time of his death. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this decision, ruling that the calculation should be based on the average weekly wage at the time of the 2000 accident. The claimant appealed this modification, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 14 and 16(5)(4) which support calculating death benefits based on the average weekly wage at the date of accident or disablement.

Death BenefitsAverage Weekly WagePermanent Partial DisabilitySpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWork-Related InjuryDate of AccidentDate of DeathAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardCalculation of Benefits
References
2
Case No. 14-07-00953-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2009

Lowe's Home Centers Inc & Natasha Tanner v. GSW Marketing, Inc. F/K/A Salesmaker, Inc. D/B/A CSA Services Southwest and Snow Mountain Construction, Inc

Natasha Tanner, an employee of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., was injured when a toilet tank fell from an elevated display and struck her head. She, along with Lowe's which intervened to assert subrogation rights, sued multiple entities including Snow Mountain Construction, Inc. (who built the display) and GSW Marketing, Inc. f/k/a Salesmakers, Inc. d/b/a CSA Services Southwest (who maintained the display) for negligent activity and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Snow Mountain and Salesmakers. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Tanner provided no evidence that either company had a duty to discover the toilet was incorrectly assembled or that they were engaged in ongoing negligent activities at the time of her injury. The court determined that the defendants' contractual obligations did not extend to inspecting the internal assembly of the toilets.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationDuty to InspectIndependent ContractorDisplay AssemblyProduct SafetyCausationTexas Appellate Law
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 14,144 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