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. 13-14-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2015

Coastal Motorcars, Ltd. D/B/A BMW of Corpus Christi v. Mary Lou Brown and Mary Alice Garcia

Coastal Motorcars Ltd. (Appellant) filed this brief appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of Mary Lou Brown and Mary Alice Garcia (Appellees). The original suit stemmed from the sale of a used BMW 528i, with Appellees alleging violations of the DTPA, breach of contract, fraud, and other claims. Coastal Motorcars argues that it did not receive proper notice of the summary judgment motion or hearing, leading to an unfair no-response summary judgment. The appellant contends that the trial court erred by granting the summary judgment on legally insufficient grounds, awarding unliquidated damages without proper support, and by not setting aside the judgment despite a lack of notice and excusable accident or mistake. The brief highlights that the damages awarded were unliquidated, and the motion for summary judgment did not explicitly request the specific amounts awarded for economic, additional, or attorney fees. Coastal Motorcars seeks a reversal of the judgment and a remand for further proceedings on all issues.

Summary judgment appealLack of noticeDTPABreach of contractFraudNegligenceUnliquidated damagesAttorney feesUsed car saleVehicle damage
References
71
Case No. ADJ8359721
Regular
Mar 12, 2013

MARY STAMPER vs. COUNTY OF KERN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the County of Kern's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) report and recommendation, which found the applicant sustained a new injury on April 11, 2012, rather than merely a temporary exacerbation of a prior injury. This finding was based on the WCJ's credible assessment of the applicant's testimony and medical evidence, particularly the opinion of Dr. Silver. Consequently, the applicant was awarded temporary total disability, medical care, and attorney's fees for the new injury.

ADJ8359721Mary StamperCounty of KernWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.April 11 2012
References
1
Case No. 08-05-00033-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Martha Gray, Rose Marie Salvato, and Edmund Higginbotham of the Estate of Mary Ann Higginbotham v. Woodville Health Care Center Dba Wodville Convalescent Center Dba Cantex Health Care Centers Dba Denison Healthcare Denter Ltd. Co. & Kerry Evans M.D.

This case concerns an appeal by Martha Gray, Rose Marie Salvato, and Edmund Higginbotham, Executor of the Estate of Mary Ann Higginbotham, from summary judgments granted in favor of Dr. Kerry Evans and Woodville Healthcare Center. Appellants filed a wrongful death suit alleging medical malpractice, gross negligence, and negligence per se following the death of Brayton Gray, who was a patient at Woodville nursing home under Dr. Evans' care. The central issue was whether the Appellants provided sufficient evidence of causation to support their claims. The court found that the expert testimony presented was conclusory or speculative and failed to establish the necessary causal link. Additionally, the court ruled that the Appellants lacked standing for constitutional claims and that no state action was involved for a Fourteenth Amendment violation. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Medical malpracticeWrongful deathSummary judgmentCausationExpert testimonyNursing home negligenceParkinson's diseaseConstitutional rightsFourteenth AmendmentState action
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 1990

In re Mary S.

This is an appeal from an order terminating a father's parental rights to his daughter, Mary S., on the grounds of permanent neglect. The Family Court found the father failed to make diligent efforts to reunite with Mary, citing non-compliance with court-ordered therapy and housing requirements, despite maintaining contact and visitation. Mary S. had a history of neglect, initially placed in foster care in 1986, and was later found to be mildly retarded, eventually bonding with the foster parents who adopted her brother. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, rejecting claims of an unfair hearing and improper testimony, emphasizing that the Department of Social Services fulfilled its duty and termination was in Mary's best interest. The decision allowed Mary S. to be freed for adoption by her foster parents.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationChild NeglectFoster CareAdoptionFamily LawSocial ServicesAppellate DecisionChild WelfareDiligent Efforts
References
4
Case No. 02-10-00399-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

Continental Casualty Insurance Company v. Mary M. Lavender

Mary M. Lavender became eligible for workers' compensation death benefits after her husband's death. Continental Casualty Insurance Company (Appellant) sought to terminate these benefits, claiming Mary had remarried through a common law marriage. Both the Contested Case Hearing Officer and the Appeals Panel ruled against Continental Casualty. The trial court granted Mary's no-evidence motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of a present intent to be married, and awarded attorney's fees to Mary. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the summary judgment and the attorney's fees award, noting that the statutory cap on fees did not apply to this type of appeal.

Death BenefitsCommon Law MarriageSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesJudicial ReviewAppeals PanelTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary Hearing
References
13
Case No. 13-18-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

City of Corpus Christi v. Marie Muller and Dean Muller

Marie Muller sustained injuries after stepping into a pothole in the City Hall parking lot while heading to work, prompting her and her husband, Dean Muller, to file a premises liability suit against the City of Corpus Christi. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity and arguing that Marie's injury occurred within the course and scope of her employment, thereby limiting her remedy to workers' compensation benefits. The Mullers contended that the injury did not fall within the course and scope of employment. The trial court denied the City's plea, and the City appealed this interlocutory order. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the City failed to present evidence demonstrating that it explicitly or implicitly intended for Marie to use the specific parking lot as an access route to work, thus failing to satisfy the "access doctrine" exception to the general rule that travel to and from work is not within the scope of employment.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActCourse and Scope of EmploymentAccess DoctrinePlea to the JurisdictionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryParking Lot Accident
References
30
Case No. 11-15-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2016

Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Mary Ann Tarango, Surviving Spouse of Manual Tarango

This case involves an appeal from the judicial review of an administrative decision by a Texas Division of Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. The panel had previously denied workers’ compensation death benefits to Mary Ann Tarango, surviving spouse of Manuel Tarango, due to alleged abandonment. The trial court subsequently reversed this administrative decision, ruling in favor of Mary Ann and entitling her to benefits. However, the Eleventh Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by improperly placing the burden of proof on Liberty Insurance Corporation to demonstrate abandonment, rather than on Mary Ann Tarango as the party seeking judicial review. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewBurden of ProofAbandonmentDeath BenefitsSpousal EligibilityTexas Labor CodeAppeals PanelTrial Court ErrorAdministrative Decision
References
4
Case No. E2001-00605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2002

Curtis Daniels v. Mary Daniels

This appellate case, Curtis Michael Daniels v. Mary Freels Daniels, concerns the division of marital property and alimony in a divorce. Mary Freels Daniels appealed the trial court's decision regarding her share of Mr. Daniels' retirement benefits, the overall marital estate division, and her eligibility for rehabilitative alimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's division of marital assets and the denial of rehabilitative alimony. However, it reversed and remanded the decision concerning Mr. Daniels' unvested TVA pension, ruling it a marital asset subject to equitable division, and provided guidelines for its valuation.

Divorce LawMarital AssetsPension RightsUnvested BenefitsAlimonySpousal SupportProperty DivisionEquitable DistributionAppellate ProcedureRemand
References
20
Case No. 04-09-00017-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2010

Mary S. Roberts v. State

Mary S. Roberts, the appellant, was found guilty on five counts of theft by coercion or deception, receiving a suspended sentence and ten years of community supervision. She appealed, citing insufficient evidence, mistake of law, jury instruction errors, indictment flaws, and the unconstitutionality of the theft statute. The core of the case involved Roberts and her husband, Ted Roberts, extorting money from four men with whom Mary had affairs. They used Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 petitions, threatening exposure and financial repercussions if the men failed to pay. The $115,000 obtained was diverted to personal and law firm expenses, rather than the purported children’s foundation. The court upheld the conviction, finding sufficient evidence for theft by deception or coercion under the law of parties. It also dismissed her affirmative defense, objections to jury instructions and indictment, and constitutional challenges to the theft statute. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Theft by CoercionTheft by DeceptionCriminal ResponsibilityLaw of PartiesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceMistake of Law DefenseJury Charge ErrorIndictment ValidityConstitutional Challenge
References
17
Case No. 08-15-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

County of El Paso, Self-Insured v. Mary Orozco

Ruben Orozco, an El Paso County deputy sheriff, tragically died in a car accident while returning home from an extra-duty security assignment. His wife, Mary Orozco, sought death benefits from the self-insured County, which denied the claim, arguing Ruben was not in the course and scope of his employment. Initially, a hearing officer found the injury compensable, but the Appeals Panel reversed this, concluding Ruben was merely commuting. The trial court sided with Mary, granting her motion for summary judgment. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Ruben was not actively engaged in law enforcement duties at the moment of the accident, thus not acting within the course and scope of his employment.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentDeputy SheriffExtra-Duty AssignmentCommuting RuleDual-Purpose TravelSummary JudgmentDeath BenefitsTexas Law
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 512 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