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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Houston Lighting & Power Co.

The City of Austin appealed a take-nothing judgment against Houston Lighting & Power Company and Houston Industries, Inc. (HL&P) concerning a jointly owned nuclear power plant. Austin alleged breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), asserting HL&P's failures as project manager led to significant cost overruns. The trial court had sustained HL&P's special exceptions regarding an implied duty of skill and care and found no causal link between HL&P's actions and increased project costs. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the duty of reasonable skill and care was not implied in the participation agreement and that the jury's findings were supported by the evidence.

Breach of contractFraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActNuclear power plant constructionProject managementUtility industry disputeImplied duty of careJury instructionsHearsay evidenceFactual sufficiency of evidence
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sosa v. Central Power & Light Co.

The Sosas sued Central Power & Light, Houston Power & Light, and General Electric for the wrongful death of Mr. Sosa, alleging liver disease from toxic chemical exposure in the early 1970s. Mr. Sosa died on June 1, 1991, and the Sosas filed suit on June 1, 1993. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing the Sosas' First Amended Original Petition's allegations showed Mr. Sosa was incapacitated for twenty years, implying knowledge of injury. The Sosas attempted to file a Second Amended Original Petition without leave of court to invoke the discovery rule, but it was struck as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the Second Amended Original Petition was untimely, leave to file was properly denied, the First Amended Original Petition's allegations constituted judicial admissions, and thus, the limitations defense barred the claim as Mr. Sosa was aware of his injuries more than four years prior to his death.

Wrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmended PleadingDiscovery RuleJudicial AdmissionsToxic ExposureLiver DiseaseAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05661 [221 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Keilitz v. Light Tower Fiber N.Y., Inc.

Christopher Keilitz, an electrician working for Hellman Electric Corp., was injured when a vacuum fell into a manhole and struck him during the installation of fiber optic cables. Keilitz sued Light Tower Fiber New York, Inc., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., and Empire City Subway (ECS) under New York Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially denied Keilitz's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims and dismissed claims against the defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Keilitz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against ECS and Light Tower. The court determined that Keilitz's work constituted an 'altering' activity under the statute and that the falling vacuum presented an elevation-related risk, rendering other related claims moot.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskManhole AccidentFiber Optic InstallationAlteration WorkAppellate DivisionThird-Party ClaimContractual Indemnification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. 03-98-00043-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1999

William Travis Light v. State

William Travis Light, certified by a juvenile court to stand trial as an adult, pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child. He was sentenced to terms of imprisonment by a jury. On appeal, Light argued that the juvenile court never obtained jurisdiction to transfer him to adult court because he was not personally served with a summons and a copy of the petition, as required by the Texas Family Code. The appellate court agreed, holding that personal service on a juvenile is mandatory for such proceedings and cannot be waived. The court rejected the State's arguments regarding preservation of error, proper personal service, and harmless error, emphasizing that a lack of jurisdiction renders subsequent proceedings void. Consequently, the judgment was vacated and the cause remanded to the juvenile court.

Juvenile CertificationPersonal ServiceJurisdictional DefectAggravated Sexual Assault of ChildIndecency with ChildTexas Family CodeTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureAppellate ProcedureWaiver of JurisdictionDue Process
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Havens v. Dallas Power & Light Co.

Henry Havens, while working as a welder on the roof of the new Johnson Bros. Chevrolet warehouse, suffered severe electrical shock and personal injuries when a steel rod he was handling contacted a high voltage line owned and maintained by Dallas Power & Light Company. National Automobile Casualty Insurance Company intervened to recoup $14,440.95 in compensation benefits paid to Havens. The trial court granted Dallas Power & Light Company's motion for summary judgment, leading to a take-nothing judgment. Havens appealed, asserting that questions of fact existed regarding the defendant's notice of the dangerous condition, the defendant's negligence, and the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the defendant was not required to anticipate dangerous consequences from the high voltage lines, which complied with safety codes, and had no notice of the specific sign erection project that created the hazardous situation.

Summary JudgmentElectrical AccidentHigh VoltagePersonal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseForeseeabilityConstructive NoticeSafety Code ComplianceWorkers' Compensation Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Central Power & Light Co. v. Romero

Oscar R. Romero, an employee, suffered a severe arm injury at a scrap metal plant and sued Central Power & Light Company (CP&L), alleging negligence for providing electricity to an unsafe workplace without proper inspection or warning. A jury found CP&L negligent and awarded Romero substantial damages, including exemplary damages for gross negligence. CP&L appealed, arguing it owed no duty to Romero. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CP&L had no general duty to inspect a customer's premises or to refuse service without actual knowledge of a defect in the customer's equipment. The court also found insufficient evidence to establish that CP&L undertook an inspection under the "Good Samaritan Rule."

NegligenceDuty of CareElectrical Utility LiabilityWorkplace AccidentPremises SafetyLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictRestatement (Second) of TortsGood Samaritan DoctrineAppellate Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2001

Claim of Barbuto v. Albany County Sheriff's Department

A deputy sheriff injured her neck during police academy training and was assigned light duty. She was later offered a telecommunications dispatcher role after a rescinded termination, but declined it, leading to her formal discharge. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling she had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market by refusing the light duty assignment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was no medical evidence showing her disability prevented her from performing the offered light duty, thus her refusal constituted a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market, disentitling her to benefits.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketLight Duty RefusalNeck InjuryDeputy SheriffTelecommunications DispatcherTerminationBenefits DenialCounsel Fees
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Browne v. Medford Multicare

The claimant, a certified nurse's aide, sustained injuries after falling at work and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. After rejecting multiple offers for light-duty assignments, the employer and its workers' compensation carrier contended that she had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. The Workers' Compensation Board concurred with the employer's assertion, ruling that the claimant had no compensable lost time following the final light-duty work offer. This decision was appealed. The court affirmed the Board's determination, citing substantial evidence, including the opinion of an orthopedic surgeon who stated that the claimant had a moderate partial disability but was capable of performing light-duty work within specified restrictions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLight-Duty WorkVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketIndependent Medical ExaminationOrthopedic Surgeon OpinionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDisability AssessmentCertified Nurse's AideEmployer Offer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Yannucci v. Consolidated Freightways

A claimant, a truck driver, sustained back and shoulder injuries after striking a curb. He returned to a light-duty clerical position but later retired. The Workers' Compensation Board denied him further benefits, ruling he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. On appeal, the central issue was whether his disability caused or contributed to his retirement. Conflicting medical opinions were presented, with his treating physician recommending retirement due to a 75% permanent partial disability, while the employer's physician believed he could continue light-duty work. The Board credited the employer's physician, noting the employer's accommodations and no lost work time in the light-duty role. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported its decision.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary withdrawal from labor marketDisability benefitsLight-duty workMedical evidencePermanent partial disabilityCredibility determinationSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewRetirement
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,503 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