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. 06-02-00107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2003

Joseph Vasquez and Guilda Vasquez, Individually and as Next Friends of Their Minor Child, Kraig Vasquez v. Six Flags Houston, Inc., D/B/A Waterworld and Ray Hedden, Individually

Kraig Vasquez, a minor and lifeguard, sustained a broken neck during a test ride at Six Flags Houston. Six Flags' insurer, TIG Premier Insurance, denied workers' compensation benefits, citing horseplay. Vasquez's parents filed common-law negligence and intentional conduct claims against Six Flags and Ray Hedden. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the injury occurred within the scope of employment and was not due to horseplay, thus the Texas Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsIntentional TortHorseplay ExceptionCourse of EmploymentTexas Labor LawAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. 04-14-00295-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2015

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Noel Vasquez

Texas Mutual Insurance Company (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and its order to pay income benefits and sanctions to Noel Vasquez (appellee). Vasquez, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, had received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Mutual. After Vasquez reached a settlement with a third party, Texas Mutual ceased benefit payments, prompting Vasquez to file a motion in the trial court seeking to compel benefits and claiming bad faith. Texas Mutual argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Vasquez had not exhausted administrative remedies with the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC). The appellate court agreed, concluding that the DWC has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes and that Vasquez failed to exhaust the required administrative process. Consequently, the appellate court granted Texas Mutual’s plea to the jurisdiction, dismissed Vasquez’s claims, and vacated the trial court’s order.

Subject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionDivision of Workers’ CompensationPlea to the JurisdictionIncome Benefits DisputeTrial Court Order VacatedJudicial Review of Agency DecisionBad Faith ClaimAppellate Court RulingWorkers' Compensation Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1996

People v. Vasquez

This opinion addresses three consolidated appeals (*People v. Vasquez*, *People v. Dalton*, *People v. Adkinson*) concerning the admissibility of hearsay statements from 911 calls under the "present sense impression" and "excited utterance" exceptions. The Court of Appeals clarified the requirements for present sense impressions, emphasizing strict contemporaneity and independent corroboration, and found these criteria were not met in the offers of proof. Specifically, in Vasquez, the 911 call was excluded due to insufficient corroboration, while Dalton's and Adkinson's 911 statements were inadmissible for lacking contemporaneity. The Court affirmed the convictions in Vasquez and Dalton, and modified Adkinson's sentence regarding consecutive counts while otherwise affirming the conviction.

Hearsay RulePresent Sense ImpressionExcited Utterance911 CallsEvidentiary LawCriminal AppealsCorroboration RequirementContemporaneity PrincipleSentencing ModificationIdentification Testimony
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vasquez v. Six Flags Houston, Inc.

Kraig Vasquez, a lifeguard, suffered a broken neck during a test ride at Six Flags' Waterworld. His employer's insurer denied workers' compensation benefits, alleging horseplay. Vasquez's parents subsequently filed common-law negligence and intentional tort claims against Six Flags Houston, Inc. and lead guard Ray Hedden. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that Vasquez was within the scope of his employment and not engaged in horseplay, thus making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. The court also found insufficient evidence of intentional action by the employer.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimIntentional TortHorseplay ExceptionCourse of EmploymentTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00519
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2024

Vasquez v. Gilbane Bldg. Co.

Plaintiff Nidia Vasquez suffered severe injuries at a construction site when a 32-foot ladder fell, leading to a lawsuit against Gilbane Building Company et al. alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), and a jury subsequently awarded her approximately $2.3 million for cervical spine and rotator cuff injuries, including significant future pain and suffering and lost earnings. Defendants appealed, contending that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable as the ladder was not in use, and arguing that plaintiff's actions constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to falling objects requiring securing regardless of use, rejected the sole proximate cause argument as speculative, and found the jury's damages award reasonable.

Construction Site AccidentFalling Ladder InjuryLabor Law Section 240(1)Absolute LiabilityElevation-Related HazardSummary JudgmentDamages AwardFuture Pain and SufferingLost EarningsAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. 532665
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christian Vasquez

Christian Vasquez, a demolition worker, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after injuring his left ankle from a fall off a ladder at work. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing a prior soccer injury and discrepancies in testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board found a work-related injury and awarded benefits, upholding the statutory presumption for unwitnessed accidents and crediting the claimant's testimony. The Board also relied on medical opinions that the severe Achilles tendon rupture could not have been sustained prior to the work incident given the claimant's ability to work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding its findings supported by substantial evidence and its credibility determinations reasonable.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryLeft Ankle InjuryLadder FallDemolition WorkUnwitnessed AccidentStatutory PresumptionCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
9
Case No. W2023-00293-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2023

Jose Marcus Perrusquia v. Floyd Bonner, Jr.

Jose Marcus Perrusquia, a journalist, filed a petition for judicial review under the Tennessee Public Records Act to gain access to surveillance video from inside the Shelby County Jail. The Shelby County Sheriff and District Attorney General denied his request, citing security exemptions in the Act. The chancery court upheld the denial, ruling that the exemption was discretionary and that the DA's office was not obligated to retain records it temporarily reviewed and returned. Perrusquia appealed, arguing the video's release was mandatory due to possible criminal activity and that the DA was a 'records custodian' with a duty to retain such records. The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court's decision, interpreting the statutory language 'may be made public' as permissive and clarifying that the Public Records Act does not require governmental entities to create or recreate records they do not possess.

Public Records ActGovernment TransparencySurveillance VideoShelby County JailSecurity ExemptionJudicial ReviewDiscretionary DisclosureRecords CustodianInjunctive ReliefLegislative Intent
References
53
Case No. 01-18-00902-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2019

Monica Vasquez Parsons v. Paul G. Parsons

Monica Vasquez Parsons appealed the denial of her motion for new trial after a post-answer default judgment was entered against her in her divorce case from Paul G. Parsons. Monica and her attorney failed to appear at trial, leading to the default judgment. She argued her non-appearance was due to an accident or mistake, citing her attorney's conflict and a substitute attorney's unavailability due to injury, which was not communicated due to a 'technological defect.' The trial court denied the motion, noting inconsistencies in Monica's explanations and finding that her explanation at the hearing about a broken ankle of an associate did not align with the written motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, deferring to its credibility determinations and concluding that the trial court could reasonably find Monica's failure to appear was intentional or consciously indifferent, thus not meeting the first prong of the Craddock test.

DivorceDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionProcedural RulesAttorney Non-AppearanceCredibility DeterminationTexas Court of AppealsMarital Estate
References
14
Case No. 2022-08-0109
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2025

Leavelle, Marcus v. RTC Memphis TN PC Docket No. 2022-08-0109

Marcus Leavelle, the employee, suffered a left knee injury while working for RCT Memphis TN PC. Initially, Dr. Goodfred deemed the injury non-work-related, but Dr. Bernholt later diagnosed it as work-related, performed surgery, and assigned a permanent impairment rating. The trial court favored Dr. Bernholt's opinion, awarding disability and medical benefits. The employer appealed, challenging the medical opinion and the court's consideration of a subsequent hoverboard incident. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, denying the employee's motion to dismiss and upholding the findings on medical testimony and the intervening event, thus certifying the compensation order as final.

Workers' Compensation AppealsKnee InjuryMedical Opinion ConflictCausation DisputePermanent ImpairmentAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealIntervening EventsAMA GuidesOrthopedic Surgery
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 145 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