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. 04-19-00058-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2019

HEB Grocery Company L.P. v. Maria Del Rosario Del Cid

Juan Del Cid Castillo sued HEB Grocery Company, L.P. for negligence after sustaining workplace injuries. His wife, Maria Del Rosario Del Cid, filed a derivative loss of consortium claim within the same lawsuit. HEB moved to compel arbitration for Juan's claim and to stay Maria's claim, citing an arbitration agreement signed by Juan. The trial court granted arbitration for Juan but denied HEB's motion to stay Maria's claim. HEB appealed this denial. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio determined that Maria's loss of consortium claim is derivative, shares operative facts, and is inherently inseparable from Juan's arbitration claim, thus falling under the mandatory stay provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case, directing the trial court to stay all proceedings related to Maria's claim pending the outcome of Juan's arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActLoss of ConsortiumNegligenceStay of ProceedingsInterlocutory AppealDerivative ClaimNon-SignatoryAbuse of DiscretionTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
15
Case No. ADJ11163911
Regular
Jul 25, 2018

MIGUEL SANTOS ISLA vs. SKYLARK INDUSTRIES, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for removal, upholding the WCJ's decision to deny a change of venue from Marina del Rey to Pomona. The defendant argued venue should shift due to witness inconvenience and travel time. The Board found the WCJ properly exercised discretion and that removal is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. The applicant initially selected Marina del Rey venue based on their attorney's location.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code Section 5501.5Labor Code Section 5501.6Good CauseWitness ConvenienceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable Harm
References
2
Case No. ADJ438284 (ANA 0339880)
Regular
Mar 14, 2013

BRIDGETT HENRY vs. HARVEST CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Appeals Board granted Applicant's Petition for Removal, overturning the WCJ's denial of a venue change from Marina del Rey to Goleta. Applicant demonstrated good cause for the transfer due to severe health issues exacerbated by the long commute to Marina del Rey. Although neither party's cited statutes definitively mandated the change, the Board prioritized Applicant's health concerns, granting the venue modification. Therefore, the case will now proceed in the Goleta district office.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueGood CauseLabor Code section 5501.6Health RisksPulmonary ConditionNebulizerIndustrial InjuryPsycheInternal Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ8278794
Regular
Oct 10, 2013

DAHLIA DIAZ vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's Petition for Removal, reversing the denial of their request for a change of venue. The Board found that the employer sufficiently detailed the substance of testimony from three Riverside County witnesses, fulfilling the requirements of Labor Code Section 5501.6(b). The original venue was Marina Del Rey, while the witnesses reside in Riverside and would face significant hardship traveling for a hearing. Therefore, the venue was officially changed from Marina Del Rey to the Riverside district office.

Petition for RemovalChange of VenueConvenience of WitnessesLabor Code Section 5501.6Presiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryCustodianMarina Del ReyRiversideSubstance of Testimony
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownsville Pediatric Ass'n v. Reyes

This medical malpractice case involves appellants Dr. Gloria Medina and Brownsville Pediatric Association, who were sued by Jaime Reyes on behalf of his son, Juan Pablo Reyes. Juan Pablo, born prematurely in 1978, suffered severe neurological impairments, including blindness and spastic paraplegia, which a jury found were proximately caused by Dr. Medina's negligence during his care as a newborn. The jury awarded over $8,000,000 in damages, primarily for future medical care. On appeal, the appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding medical causation and damages, several evidentiary rulings concerning the injection of insurance and prior lawsuits, and the imposition of prejudgment interest against Brownsville Pediatric Association. They also argued that the damage award violated a statutory cap. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on negligence and causation, the damage award, the trial court's evidentiary decisions, and the prejudgment interest calculation. The court also ruled that the statutory damage cap was unconstitutional, aligning with prior Texas Supreme Court decisions.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationDamagesFuture Medical ExpensesPrejudgment InterestStatutory CapSufficiency of EvidenceExpert TestimonyVentilation Management
References
43
Case No. CV-22-2294, CV-22-2299
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jose Reyes Bonilla

Jose Reyes Bonilla and Marvin Reyes Bonilla, carpenters, filed workers' compensation claims after being injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling to a job site in an employer-provided van. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed decisions that established their claims against XL Specialty Insurance, ruling that their injuries arose out of and in the course of their employment. XL Specialty appealed, arguing its policy did not cover commuting injuries and that it was not the proper carrier. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding XL Specialty failed to preserve its challenge and that the injuries were compensable due to the employer's control over transportation. The court also concluded that XL Specialty's policy exclusion was inapplicable as the transportation was incidental to the project.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment InjuriesCourse of EmploymentEmployer Provided TransportationInsurance Coverage DisputeWrap-up PolicyAppellate ReviewPreclusionPenalties
References
17
Case No. 13-00-273-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2002

Brownsville Pediatric Association and Dr. Gloria Medina v. Reyes, Jaime, as Next Friend of Juan Pablo Reyes, an Incompetent

The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a medical malpractice judgment against Brownsville Pediatric Association and Dr. Gloria Medina. The case involved the negligent care of newborn Juan Pablo Reyes, who suffered blindness and severe neurological impairments (PVL) due to improper ventilator management and intubation procedures. The appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding causation and the excessiveness of the $6.5 million damage award for future medical expenses. The court found the evidence factually and legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict, upheld the damage award, affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings and the calculation of prejudgment interest, and rejected arguments about statutory damage caps.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationSufficiency of EvidenceDamage AwardFuture Medical ExpensesPrejudgment InterestEvidentiary RulingsExpert TestimonyVentilator Management
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes Compania Naviera S.A. v. Manumante S.A.

Petitioner Reyes, owner of the M.V. Paean, sought to vacate or modify an arbitration award. The arbitration arose from a consolidated proceeding between Reyes, Manumante S.A., and Czarnikow-Rionda Co., Inc., concerning a loss Czarnikow sustained because the vessel failed to carry a full cargo. The arbitrators directed Reyes to pay Czarnikow directly for a stipulated loss of $27,500. Reyes argued the panel exceeded its authority, citing a lack of privity of contract with Czarnikow. The Court, however, found that a three-party submission agreement, signed by all involved parties, cured any jurisdictional defect by allowing the arbitrators to apportion liability directly. Consequently, the Court denied Reyes' petition.

ArbitrationArbitration AwardVacate AwardModify AwardConsolidated ArbitrationCharterpartyContract LawPrivity of ContractSubmission AgreementPanel Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Montes-Reyes

Defendant Leonardo Montes-Reyes moved to suppress evidence, including physical items from a hotel room search and statements, obtained on December 19, 2007. Law enforcement agents, including DEA Agent Marlow Luna, gained entry to Montes-Reyes's hotel room using a ruse about searching for a missing four-year-old girl. The court found this initial consent involuntary, equating the "missing girl" ruse to creating a false sense of exigent circumstances, similar to a gas leak emergency. The opinion determined that subsequent written and oral consents to search, as well as statements made by Montes-Reyes, were not sufficiently purged of the taint from the initial illegal entry. Consequently, the court granted Montes-Reyes's motion to suppress all the evidence.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsent to SearchPolice DeceptionVoluntarinessMotion to SuppressExigent CircumstancesFruit of the Poisonous TreeMiranda WarningsDrug Enforcement Agency
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Storage & Processors, Inc.

Ramon Reyes, a forklift operator for Storage & Processors, Inc. (S&P), suffered a severe workplace injury when a coworker, Leonel Guerrero, drove a forklift over his foot. S&P, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, offered an optional Accident Employee Welfare Benefit Plan which Reyes signed, purportedly waiving common law claims against S&P and its employees. After a trial court granted summary judgment for S&P and Guerrero based on this waiver, Reyes appealed. This appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the benefit plan agreement, as a contractual attempt to relieve parties of liability for their own negligence, must satisfy the fair notice requirements of conspicuousness and the express negligence doctrine. The court found that because S&P conceded non-compliance with the conspicuousness requirement and there was a fact issue regarding Reyes's actual knowledge, the agreement was unenforceable and summary judgment was improper.

Workplace InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentWaiverEmployee Benefit PlanCommon Law ClaimsFair NoticeConspicuousnessExpress Negligence DoctrineActual Knowledge
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 286 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