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. 13-09-00610-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2011

Humberto A. Rangel v. Nueces County

Humberto A. Rangel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Nueces County and the denial of his cross-motion regarding a workers' compensation dispute. Rangel sustained a lower back injury in 2003 while working as a mechanic's assistant for Nueces County, a self-insured entity. After experiencing subsequent back pain incidents in 2004 and 2006, the DWC ruled the 2006 incident was a new injury, not an exacerbation of the 2003 injury. The appellate court reviewed conflicting medical opinions from Dr. Chodosh and Dr. Puentes, finding a genuine issue of material fact on the causality of Rangel's 2006 pain. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of Rangel's summary judgment, reversed Nueces County's summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentBack InjuryLumbar SpineMedical CausationAgreed Statement of FactsExacerbationHerniated DiscJudicial ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
24
Case No. 09-22-00199-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

in Re Brooke Adams Manuel

This is an original proceeding from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont concerning a wrongful-death suit initiated by Brooke Adams Manuel, representative of Frank Adams' estate. Manuel brought claims against hospice care entities and their employee, Karen Elizey Havens, alleging an improper relationship with the decedent and financial exploitation. Manuel sought to compel discovery of documents related to a complaint filed against Havens with the Texas State Board of Social Worker Examiners, which the trial court denied due to alleged irrelevance. The Court of Appeals found the trial court abused its discretion by concluding the documents were irrelevant, as they concerned Havens' position on allegations directly related to the lawsuit. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted mandamus relief, instructing the trial court to vacate its order and reconsider Havens' remaining objections.

Wrongful DeathMandamusDiscovery MotionEvidence RelevanceAbuse of DiscretionSocial Worker EthicsAdministrative ComplaintIn Camera ReviewAppellate ProcedureTrial Court Order
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnston Testers v. Rangel

Jose Rangel, an employee of Sam Howell Drilling Company, filed a third-party action against Johnston Testers for injuries sustained during an oil well testing operation. Rangel was struck by a falling pipe section called a 'sub' that became unscrewed. The jury awarded Rangel $74,598.00 for damages, including diminished earning capacity and medical expenses. Johnston Testers appealed, alleging trial court errors regarding special issues on sole proximate cause, evidence sufficiency for defendant's employee negligence, and defenses of borrowed servant and volenti non fit injuria. The appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

oil field injurynegligencethird-party actionworkers' compensationproximate causeborrowed servantvolenti non fit injuriajury instructionsappellate reviewpersonal injury
References
23
Case No. 04-14-00785-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2015

Mary Ann Castro v. Manuel Castro

Maryann Castro, the appellant, files a statement in the Fourth Court of Appeals to reopen a final divorce agreement with Manuel Castro, the appellee. She alleges fraud, misrepresentation of marital home value, hidden marital assets, and undisclosed bankruptcy by Manuel Castro, leading to substantial financial hardship. Disabled and unemployed, she asserts inability to pay marital debts, including mortgage and taxes, and requests alimony from Manuel Castro, who she claims is gainfully employed and dishonest. She highlights an active workers' compensation claim and fears homelessness if the agreement is not reopened.

Divorce AppealMarital FraudAsset ConcealmentProperty OvervaluationSpousal AlimonyFinancial HardshipDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation ClaimMortgage DefaultTax Delinquency
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07049 [188 AD3d 1182]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Matter of Treyvone A. (Manuel R.)

This case involves an appeal by Manuel R. from an order of disposition of the Family Court, Kings County, which found that he neglected the subject child, Treyvone A. The order placed the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York. The Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed with the Family Court's finding that Manuel R. neglected the child by failing to provide adequate food and clothing. However, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's finding that Manuel R. neglected the child by using excessive corporal punishment, stating that the child's out-of-court statements lacked sufficient corroboration. Consequently, the order of disposition was modified by deleting the provision finding excessive corporal punishment, and as so modified, affirmed.

Child NeglectFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewCorporal PunishmentEvidentiary StandardsCorroboration RequirementDue ProcessEffective Assistance of CounselVacatur of OrderCPLR 5015
References
16
Case No. 2-06-379-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

Manuel Angel Lozano v. State

Manuel Angel Lozano appealed his conviction for assault — bodily injury, arguing insufficient evidence and improper admission of text messages. The victim, Aileen Elizabeth Bah, testified that Lozano, her former boyfriend and fellow police officer, physically assaulted her during an argument, causing a shoulder injury. Lozano claimed he did not intend to injure her and was attempting to console her. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the conviction. The court also held that Lozano's text messages were admissible as admissions by a party-opponent and did not constitute hearsay.

Assault - Bodily InjuryCriminal AppealSufficiency of EvidenceHearsayAdmissions by Party-OpponentText Message EvidenceDomestic AbusePolice MisconductShoulder InjuryMedical Expert Testimony
References
20
Case No. 10-06-00415-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2008

Manuel Villegas v. Heidi Henke Morse

Manuel Villegas appealed a default judgment entered in favor of Heidi Morse, stemming from a vehicle accident. Villegas contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion for new trial, asserting that his failure to answer was accidental, he possessed a meritorious defense, and Morse would not face undue prejudice from a new trial, thereby satisfying the criteria of the Craddock test. The appellate court determined that Villegas and his representatives, Affirmative Insurance and defense counsel Mark Burck, diligently sought to ascertain the status of service, indicating an absence of conscious indifference. Villegas successfully established a meritorious defense by alleging comparative negligence on Morse's part and pre-existing conditions. Furthermore, Villegas offered to cover incurred costs, and Morse failed to demonstrate specific prejudice. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the trial court's denial of Villegas's motion for a new trial constituted an abuse of discretion, leading to a reversal and remand for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseUndue DelayPrejudiceCivil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 14-03-00463-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2004

Lorraine M. Manon v. Manuel E. Solis

Lorraine M. Mañon appealed a judgment in favor of Manuel E. Solis, stemming from a dispute over alleged fraudulent and negligent misrepresentations made during her recruitment for an attorney position. Mañon claimed Solis made misrepresentations regarding work conditions and firm practices. The trial court's initial summary judgment for Solis was reversed and remanded by the Eleventh Court of Appeals. On remand, a jury found Mañon's allegations unfounded. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mañon failed to conclusively establish her claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, or breach of fiduciary duty. The court also found no error in the denial of her motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and new trial, and her claims regarding discovery, evidentiary rulings, sealing records, and sanctions were overruled.

FraudNegligent MisrepresentationBreach of Fiduciary DutyEmployment LawAppellate CourtJury VerdictCivil ProcedureJudicial EstoppelMotion for New TrialDiscovery Dispute
References
28
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00603 [135 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2016

Matter of Nataysha O. (Manuel O.)

The Family Court, Bronx County, initially dismissed petitions alleging neglect against respondent Manuel O. for inflicting excessive corporal punishment on one child and derivatively neglecting two others. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision. The court found, based on a preponderance of evidence including the child's statements and a photograph, that respondent intentionally burned his nearly four-year-old daughter with a cigarette. The respondent's testimony of an accidental injury was rejected as improbable. Consequently, the Appellate Division entered findings of neglect and derivative neglect against the respondent and remanded the case to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing.

NeglectCorporal PunishmentChild AbuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureEvidenceCredibilityDerivative NeglectIntentional InjuryCigarette Burn
References
5
Case No. 14-12-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2012

in Re New Hampshire Insurance Company, Gallagher Bassett Services,Inc and Manuel Aragon

Relators New Hampshire Insurance Company, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., and Manuel Aragon sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Jaclanel McFarland after she denied their plea to the jurisdiction in a bad faith lawsuit filed by Catherine Penarugia. Penarugia's lawsuit stemmed from an alleged delay in handling her workers' compensation claim, despite an administrative decision extending her compensable injury. The relators argued Penarugia failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the relators did not demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion. The court noted that a claimant is not required to seek review of undisputed issues, and the record lacked sufficient information to confirm if all issues were fully decided by the administrative body.

Workers' CompensationMandamusPlea to the JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesInsurance Bad FaithTexas Court of AppealsAbuse of DiscretionExhaustion of RemediesDWC DecisionExtent of Injury
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 196 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