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. 03-11-00327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. v. Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez

This case involves a lease dispute between Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. (Appellants) and Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez (Appellees). Appellants appealed a trial court's summary judgment which declared that Cedar Contracting's assignment of its commercial lease rights and subsequent sublease violated the lease terms with Connie Hernandez. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the lease terminated upon Hernandez's notice of termination and that Cedar Contracting did not have an unrestricted right to assign or sublease the property without the landlord's consent. The court concluded that the phrase 'or its assigns' in the lease did not override the explicit restriction and found no error in the trial court's decision that Hernandez was justified in interfering with the sublease.

Lease DisputeCommercial LeaseAssignment of LeaseSubleaseLandlord ConsentSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationNotice of TerminationTortious InterferenceAttorney's Fees
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

Gladys Hernandez sued AT & T for wrongful discharge, alleging retaliation after filing a worker's compensation claim for a wrist injury sustained in January 2002. AT & T terminated Hernandez citing unsatisfactory attendance, adhering to a progressive disciplinary policy. Hernandez had a history of absences and previous warnings, including a final letter of warning prior to her 2002 injury. The trial court granted summary judgment for AT & T, which the appellate court affirmed. The court found Hernandez failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that AT & T's non-discriminatory reason for termination was a pretext for retaliation.

Wrongful DischargeRetaliationWorker's Compensation ClaimSummary JudgmentAttendance PolicyBurden-ShiftingCausal LinkPretextCircumstantial EvidenceLabor Law
References
8
Case No. 08-20-00015-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2022

Jorge L. Hernandez v. King Aerospace

This case involves an appeal regarding whether plaintiff-worker Jorge L. Hernandez was an "employee" of King Aerospace under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act's exclusive-remedy provision, which would bar his personal injury claim. A jury initially found Hernandez was not an employee, awarding him over a million dollars. However, the trial court disregarded the jury's verdict, concluding Hernandez was King's employee and entered a take-nothing judgment. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's decision, finding the procedural question of error in deciding the issue was not preserved. Ultimately, the appellate court concluded that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Hernandez's employment status, which the jury had resolved against King. Therefore, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case to reinstate the jury's verdict in favor of Hernandez.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorRight to ControlJury VerdictDirected VerdictJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
33
Case No. ADJ8399186
Regular
Jul 25, 2013

MARIBEL HERNANDEZ vs. NORMA'S RESTAURANT; FARMERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Maribel Hernandez's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the reasoning of the WCJ, who found that the applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). This decision was based on the totality of the record, including inconsistencies in the applicant's testimony regarding symptom onset and information provided to her physician, as well as her delay in seeking medical treatment and not missing work. The WCAB deferred to the WCJ's credibility findings, which it found were not arbitrary, and determined that Dr. Hunt's report did not constitute substantial evidence due to its failure to incorporate subsequent medical findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibility findingsubstantial medical evidenceDr. Timothy HuntDr. RafaelEMG studyAOE/COE analysisinconsistency in testimonyapplicant credibility
References
3
Case No. 03-13-00268-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2014

Reynaldo Hernandez, Jr. v. State

Reynaldo Hernandez, Jr. was convicted of theft after stealing a pick-up truck, evading police, and causing a fatal crash. He appealed his conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove the owner was deprived of the property. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the conviction, stating that the evidence overwhelmingly established Hernandez's intent to deprive the owner. The court also noted the frivolous nature of Hernandez's appeal arguments. Additionally, the court modified a clerical error in the judgment concerning Hernandez's plea to prior felony enhancement allegations.

Theft convictionLegal sufficiency of evidenceIntent to depriveEvading arrestFatal car crashFelony enhancementAppellate reviewMemorandum OpinionCriminal appealClerical error modification
References
17
Case No. 2-06-132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2007

William Lowe, M.D. v. Mary Hernandez

Mary Hernandez, an employee of Calico Corners, sustained a work-related wrist injury and was treated by Dr. William Lowe. Dr. Lowe completed Texas Workers’ Compensation Work Status Reports (WSRs) throughout her recovery. Following a Functional Capacity Examination (FCE), Dr. Lowe mistakenly reported a permanent five-pound lifting restriction for Hernandez instead of fifty pounds, despite the FCE showing she could lift up to fifty pounds for some tasks. Calico Corners terminated Hernandez's employment based on this erroneous permanent restriction, as her job required lifting up to fifty pounds. Hernandez sued Dr. Lowe for negligence, claiming his misreporting and failure to correct the error caused her termination. A jury found Dr. Lowe 100% negligent, awarding Hernandez $179,589 in damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of Dr. Lowe's negligence and rejecting his arguments regarding expert testimony, contributory negligence, and charge errors.

References
22
Case No. 03-95-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 1996

Joe Hernandez Enterprise, Inc. v. Chris Hotard and Melissa Hotard

The case involves Joe Hernandez Enterprise, Inc. (Hernandez) challenging a default judgment obtained by Chris and Melissa Hotard after a vehicle collision. Hernandez failed to answer the petition, and the trial court refused to set aside the default judgment. The appellate court applied the Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines rule, finding that Hernandez's failure to answer was not intentional or consciously indifferent, as the citation and petition were inadvertently lost during transmission by its insurer, which was in receivership. Hernandez also presented a meritorious defense, alleging Chris Hotard's negligence contributed to the accident and that some wrist injuries were pre-existing. The court determined that granting Hernandez's motion to set aside the default judgment would not cause delay or injury to the Hotards. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for a trial on the merits.

Default JudgmentMotion for RehearingCraddock TestMeritorious DefenseConscious IndifferenceInsurance ReceivershipVehicle CollisionNegligenceAppellate CourtTexas Law
References
15
Case No. 03-95-00503-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1996

Ofelia Hernandez v. Texas Department of Insurance and Commissioner of Insurance

This appeal addresses whether a state agency must promptly notify a party when their motion for rehearing is overruled by operation of law. Ofelia Hernandez's insurance license was revoked, and her timely filed motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law after 45 days. Hernandez filed her petition for judicial review late, arguing the Texas Department of Insurance failed to notify her of the motion being overruled. The court concluded that no such obligation exists, as Hernandez was charged with knowing the statutory deadlines. Consequently, Hernandez's petition for judicial review was untimely, and the trial court's dismissal for want of jurisdiction was affirmed.

Administrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewTimeliness of AppealMotion for RehearingOverruled by Operation of LawAgency NoticeAppellate ProcedureFindings of FactJurisdictional DismissalTexas Court of Appeals
References
10
Case No. 04-10-00730-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2011

Israel Hernandez v. Grey Wolf Drilling, L.P.

Israel Hernandez, a fifty-three-year-old employee, was terminated by Grey Wolf Drilling, L.P. on September 17, 2007, and subsequently sued the company under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) for age discrimination and retaliation. Hernandez alleged his supervisor repeatedly used ageist slurs and fired him after he complained, replacing him with a younger worker. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment for Grey Wolf, which Hernandez appealed. The appellate court, reviewing the case de novo under the McDonnell Douglas-Burdine framework, determined that Hernandez had provided more than a scintilla of evidence to support his prima facie claims of age discrimination and retaliation. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding the summary judgment improperly granted.

Age discriminationRetaliationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActSummary judgmentAppellate reviewEmployment lawMcDonnell Douglas-Burdine frameworkPretext claimCircumstantial evidenceCausal link
References
17
Case No. 03-15-00384-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2015

Crystal Bingham Hernandez v. Tiffany Polley

Appellant Crystal Bingham Hernandez filed a lawsuit claiming damages from a motor vehicle collision, asserting a negligent entrustment claim against Appellee Tiffany Polley. The trial court granted Polley's motion to dismiss as a 'death penalty' sanction for alleged discovery abuse, dismissing all of Hernandez's claims against Polley. Hernandez is appealing this dismissal, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the severe sanction without first considering lesser sanctions and by failing to specify the exact discovery failures. She contends she made good faith efforts to comply with discovery orders and that her case's merits should not be prejudiced by the sanction.

Discovery SanctionsDeath Penalty SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureMotion to DismissNegligent EntrustmentMotor Vehicle CollisionInsurance DisputeTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureDue Process Violation
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 372 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