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. 03-01-00214-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

Hobert T. Douglas, II, Attorney at Law, P.C. And Hobert T. Douglas, II, Individually v. Edward J. Petrus

Appellee Edward J. Petrus sued appellants Hobert T. Douglas, II, Attorney at Law, P.C., and Hobert T. Douglas individually, seeking $47,200 for consulting and expert services provided in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Following a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of Petrus. Douglas appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for new trial due to inadequate notice of the trial setting and his unpreparedness resulting from mistake. The appellate court found Douglas's amended motion for new trial was untimely and that the record did not support his claim of inadequate notice. Furthermore, the court determined that even if the Craddock test for default judgments applied, Douglas's timely-filed motion failed to establish a meritorious defense with supporting evidence. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

AppealMotion for New TrialNotice of TrialDue ProcessDefault JudgmentCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionMeritorious DefenseAttorney UnpreparednessSworn Account
References
14
Case No. 13-07-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2008

Lorenzo Gomez v. Vertex Aerospace, LLC, the Boeing Company, and McDonnell Douglas Corporation

The case involves Lorenzo Gomez appealing a trial court's summary judgment in favor of his former employers, Vertex Aerospace, LLC, The Boeing Company, and McDonnell Douglas Corporation. Gomez had sued for employment discrimination based on national origin, age, and disability, as well as negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, following his layoff and subsequent re-employment in a lower-skilled role, leading to his resignation. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Boeing due to Gomez's failure to file a timely discrimination charge. While Gomez's charge against Vertex was deemed timely regarding the constructive discharge claim, the court ultimately upheld the summary judgment for Vertex, concluding that Vertex had successfully negated an essential element of the discrimination claim by providing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decision.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTimelinessContinuing ViolationRetaliationConstructive DischargePrima Facie CaseBurden-ShiftingAge Discrimination
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynn v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.

This case concerns a negligence action for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff John Lynn in an airplane elevator accident during his employment with Pan Am. After receiving workers' compensation, Lynn and other plaintiffs sued Pan Am (as successor to National Airlines) and McDonnell Douglas Corp. A jury apportioned fault primarily to Pan Am. Pan Am appealed the denial of its motion to vacate and the interlocutory judgment. Plaintiffs cross-appealed against McDonnell Douglas. The appellate court dismissed both the appeal from the order and the cross-appeal. It modified the interlocutory judgment, affirming in part, but ordered a new trial for plaintiffs' claims against Pan Am due to errors in the jury charge regarding successor liability and the consideration of post-merger negligence.

Negligence ActionPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ProcedureJury Instruction ErrorSuccessor Corporation LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityInterlocutory Judgment AppealNew Trial GrantedCross-Appeal DismissalCorporate Merger Liabilities
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douglas Spicer v. Texas Workforce Commission

Douglas Spicer appealed the trial court's summary judgment upholding the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) denial of unemployment benefits. Spicer, a former pianist and organist for Pleasant Valley United Methodist Church, was denied benefits due to an exemption in the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act (TUCA) for church employment, leading him to challenge the statute's constitutionality. He argued that section 201.066 of the TUCA violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, specifically the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. The appellate court, applying the Lemon test and rational-basis review, found no constitutional violations. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the TWC's decision to deny unemployment benefits to Spicer was supported by substantial evidence.

Unemployment BenefitsChurch ExemptionConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEstablishment ClauseFree Exercise ClauseEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentAdministrative Law
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metro. Transit Auth. of Harris Cnty. v. Douglas

Viola M. Douglas, a lieutenant with the Metro Police Department, filed a discrimination charge and later added retaliation claims after she was denied a promotion and her performance evaluations were lowered following her initial complaint. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (Metro) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, contending Douglas failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her retaliation claims and that the alleged actions were not materially adverse. The appellate court denied Douglas's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that Douglas had alleged materially adverse employment actions and was not required to exhaust administrative remedies for retaliation claims that stem from an earlier discrimination charge, applying the 'Gupta' exception. Consequently, the trial court's denial of Metro's plea to the jurisdiction was affirmed.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationAdministrative RemediesGovernmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTWCTitle VIIAdverse Employment ActionPerformance Evaluation
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Douglas v. Levingston Shipbuilding Co.

Adolph Douglas sued Levingston Shipbuilding Company, Pat Denby, and Denby-Drilco Foundation Drilling & Repairing, Inc., alleging wrongful discharge under worker's compensation law (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c) and conspiracy. Douglas claimed he was fired by Levingston after Pat Denby (President of his former employer, Drilco) informed Levingston about his worker's compensation claim. However, Levingston contended Douglas was dismissed solely for falsifying his employment application, where he failed to disclose his previous employment with Drilco, a hand injury, and a worker's compensation claim. The court found that Douglas had agreed in his application that misrepresentations would be grounds for termination. The judgment of the trial court, which granted summary judgment to the defendants, was affirmed.

Wrongful DischargeEmployment Application FalsificationWorker's Compensation ClaimCivil ConspiracySummary JudgmentTexas LawEmployer-Employee RelationsMisrepresentationContract of EmploymentRetaliatory Discharge
References
7
Case No. ADJ2403735
Regular
Feb 27, 2025

MICHAEL CROUGH vs. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS/BOEING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of Findings of Fact regarding the defendant's petition for credit for permanent disability advances. The defendant, McDonnell Douglas/Boeing and California Insurance Guarantee Association, sought a credit of $34,738.40, arguing it was due under a prior Stipulation with Request for Award. However, the Board found that the defendant failed to provide evidence demonstrating that equity favored the allowance of the credit or to specify against which benefits the credit would apply. Consequently, the Board affirmed the original Findings of Fact, amending them to explicitly deny the defendant's petition for credit of overpayment of permanent disability benefits.

California Workers CompensationPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation with Request for AwardPermanent Disability AdvancesCredit for OverpaymentLabor Code Section 5909Labor Code Section 4909Equitable PrinciplesWCAB Rule 10555Burden of Proof
References
5
Case No. ADJ4164639, ADJ4231177, ADJ2881670
Regular
Mar 23, 2018

AUDREY MARSHALL vs. MCDONNEL DOUGLAS/BOEING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, SEDGWICK CMS, FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY

This case involves three consolidated workers' compensation claims (ADJ4164639, ADJ4231177, ADJ2881670) for applicant Audrey Marshall against McDonnel Douglas/Boeing. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to review factual and legal issues, finding temporary and permanent disability of 52% for ADJ4164639, and determined the claim was not time-barred. Following a settlement conference, parties entered into Compromise and Release agreements for all three cases. The WCAB found these settlements adequate and in the applicant's best interest, approving the agreements and rescinding a prior award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleaseStatute of LimitationsReconsiderationCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryLabor Code Section 5310Labor Code Section 5001WCAB Rule 10882Temporary Disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ2104277 (LBO 0294626)
Regular
Jun 14, 2013

JEANETTE COOK vs. THE BOEING COMPANY/MCDONNEL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, CIGA by its servicing facility, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES for FREMONT INDEMNITY, in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a March 27, 2013, decision regarding Jeanette Cook's claim against The Boeing Company/McDonnell Douglas Corporation. This action was taken to allow for further review of the case's factual and legal issues, ensuring a just and reasoned decision. Pending a decision after reconsideration, all future communications must be filed in writing with the Board's Commissioners and not electronically.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationStatutory time constraintsFactual and legal issuesJust and reasoned decisionFurther proceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemDistrict Office
References
0
Case No. 03-13-00092-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2015

Howard Thomas Douglas v. State

Howard Thomas Douglas was convicted of securing execution of a document by deception, a third-degree felony, and received a suspended sentence of eight years’ confinement, ten years community supervision, a fine, and restitution. The conviction stemmed from his medical business, Western Medical Evaluators, Inc. (WME), which systematically billed Texas Mutual Insurance Company for the maximum allowable time for functional capacity evaluations (FCEs), regardless of the actual time spent on these evaluations. Douglas, as the medical director, made the decision to bill the maximum, arguing that preparation and report writing time justified it, despite medical guidelines specifying direct patient contact time. Multiple employees and patients testified that FCEs took significantly less time, with employees instructed to inflate billing figures. Douglas appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence concerning his intent to defraud, deception, the jurisdictional amount, and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, but the appellate court overruled all his issues.

Securing Execution of Document by DeceptionFelony Third DegreeCommunity SupervisionRestitution OrderWorkers' Compensation FraudMedical Billing FraudFunctional Capacity EvaluationDesignated Doctor ExaminationCPT CodesSufficiency of Evidence
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,138 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