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. 13-06-237-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Thirteenth District Court of Texas, Corpus Christi-Edinburg, affirmed the termination of a biological mother's parental rights to her three minor daughters, V.A.1, V.A.2, and V.A.3. The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (the Department) initially sued the mother, alleging conditions endangering the children and the mother's failure to comply with court-ordered actions for family reunification under sections of the Texas Family Code. A jury found statutory grounds for termination and that it was in the children's best interest. The mother appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the evidence for termination and the trial court's admission of alleged 'backdoor hearsay' testimony regarding drug use. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that the mother failed to comply with the court-ordered service plan and that termination was in the children's best interest. The court also concluded there was no reversible error in the admission of the challenged testimony, as it was consistent with other admitted evidence.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareTexas Family CodeFactual SufficiencyHearsay EvidenceAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildChild Abuse AllegationsUnstable Home EnvironmentSubstance Abuse
References
18
Case No. 06-04-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2004

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Stephen Kenneth Yarbrough appealed a trial court's order to pay child support for his three minor children. His initial pro se appellate brief was found defective, lacking clear arguments and proper citations to authorities and the record. Despite being granted an extension and submitting a second brief, it also failed to meet the requirements of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Consequently, the appellate court struck his second brief and prohibited him from filing another, proceeding as if no brief had been filed. The appeal was ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution. The court also noted that the trial court's child support order for Virgil, who was over eighteen, was supported by evidence that he had not yet graduated high school.

DivorceChild SupportAppellate ProcedureBrief DefectDismissal for Want of ProsecutionTexas LawFamily LawPro Se AppealStatutory InterpretationTrial Court Order
References
8
Case No. 08-04-00135-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2005

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This is an appeal from a trial court's decision granting a plea to the jurisdiction in a Texas Workers’ Compensation Act case. Margarita Morales, on behalf of her deceased husband's minor children, sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel denied death benefits, ruling that Guadalupe Morales was not an employee. The central dispute on appeal was whether the issue of the decedent's employment status constituted a question of 'coverage' or 'compensability.' The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's dismissal, agreeing that the issue was one of coverage, for which jurisdiction properly lay in Travis County, rather than El Paso County.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionCoverage DisputeCompensabilityEmployment StatusTexas Labor CodeJudicial ReviewAppeals PanelDeath Benefits
References
10
Case No. 08-04-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Francisco Garcia, individually and as next friend for his minor children, Francisco Garcia, Jr. and Kevin Garcia (the Garcias), appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc. (J.J.S. Enterprises). The case originated from the death of Rosario Michelle Garcia, who died during a robbery at her employer, PDQ Drive-In Grocery. Mrs. Garcia, a cashier, pursued a shoplifter against company policy, fell from a moving vehicle, and was fatally injured. The Garcias filed a wrongful death suit alleging negligence, but J.J.S. Enterprises moved for summary judgment citing a pre-injury waiver. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling the pre-injury waiver valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' lawsuit.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentPre-Injury WaiverOccupational Accident PlanNon-Subscriber EmployerTexas LawPublic PolicyFair NoticeActual Knowledge
References
21
Case No. 23-0697
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed and vacated a temporary injunction against Senate Bill 14, which prohibits certain medical treatments for minors related to gender transition. Parents of children with gender dysphoria, along with physicians and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, had challenged the law as unconstitutional, alleging infringements on parental rights, occupational freedom for physicians, and discrimination based on sex and transgender status. The Court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish a probable right to relief, asserting that parental rights are not absolute and the Legislature has constitutional authority to regulate medicine, especially regarding novel treatments for new conditions. The Court also found no unconstitutional discrimination, stating the law treats males and females equally in its prohibitions and that "transgender status" is not a protected class under the Texas Constitution.

Parental RightsMedical RegulationGender DysphoriaConstitutional LawDue Course of LawEqual ProtectionTransgender RightsMinors' Medical TreatmentLegislative AuthorityTexas Supreme Court
References
62
Case No. 06-01-00034-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2002

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Terry Allen, a truck driver, sustained injuries when his partially-loaded tanker truck overturned. He and his wife, individually and as next friends for their minor children, sued his employer, A & T Transportation Company, Inc., alleging that the company failed to warn or train him about the unique handling characteristics of a partially-loaded tanker. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of A & T. On appeal, the Allens argued that the trial court erred because A & T had a mandatory and nondelegable duty to warn employees of hazards and provide a safe workplace. The appellate court found no legal authority supporting a duty for an employer to train an experienced individual in their chosen trade. The court concluded that the employer had no duty to instruct Terry Allen, thereby negating a necessary element of the Allens' negligence claim. Consequently, the summary judgment was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer DutyNegligence ClaimTruck Driver InjuryTanker Truck AccidentPartial Load HazardDuty to WarnDuty to TrainExperienced Employee
References
35
Case No. E2008-00511-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2009

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case concerns an appeal by John Doe and his parents against the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. John Doe, then a minor, was placed on a "secret, government maintained ‘indicated’ perpetrator list" without being afforded due process, leading to the plaintiffs' legal challenge. The Chancery Court for Knox County dismissed the action, ruling it was not "ripe" because there was no allegation of the department releasing Doe's name from the list, which would trigger a hearing under revised rules. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. However, the appellate court based its decision on John Doe's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not requesting an available administrative hearing, which he was entitled to under the rules in effect at the time of the incident, prior to initiating a direct appeal.

Due processChild abuseAdministrative lawRipeness doctrineAppellate reviewTennessee lawConstitutional rightsMinor's rightsExhaustion of remediesGovernment list
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This consolidated opinion addresses a motion brought by minor parents, Barbara Allen and Gail Lawrence, who are respondents in separate neglect proceedings initiated by the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS). The parents, who are or recently were in foster care, argue that ACS has a conflict of interest in prosecuting neglect cases against individuals for whom it also serves as parens patriae. They sought an order to relieve ACS as petitioner and appoint a special prosecutor. The court, presided over by Daniel Turbow, J., denied the motion, concluding that no legal basis exists for the requested relief, as any alleged conflict is inherent in ACS’s statutory obligations. However, the court urged ACS to consider the age of minor parents in such cases and suggested utilizing Social Services Law § 398 to assume care of destitute children without necessarily imposing a neglect finding, emphasizing that minors should not be held to the same standard of care as adults.

Child NeglectFoster CareMinor ParentsConflict of InterestSpecial ProsecutorFamily Court Act Article 10Social Services LawParens PatriaeLaw GuardianStandard of Care for Minors
References
25
Case No. 14-18-01059-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

In this appeal, Rose A. Munguia, as next friend of minor children E.S.U. and J.M.U., challenges the trial court’s grant of summary judgment favoring Justrod, Inc. in a wrongful death action. Jose Ucles, the deceased, was working for Justrod as a framer when he fell to his death. Ucles was covered by worker’s compensation insurance. Munguia filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful death and gross negligence. Justrod filed both a no-evidence motion for summary judgment and a traditional motion for summary judgment, which were granted by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the judgment because Munguia failed to challenge all the grounds on which the summary judgment could have been based.

Summary JudgmentWrongful DeathGross NegligenceWorker's Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAppellate ProcedureChallenge All GroundsNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentTraditional Summary JudgmentFramer Accident
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This worker's compensation case concerns the death of an employee from a heart attack while driving a truck for Temple Eas-tex. The deceased's three minor children were awarded full death benefits. The appellant, Temple Eas-tex, appealed on several points, including the trial judge's inquiry of the jury concerning a medical witness, the admissibility of hearsay testimony from the widow, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding of employment as a producing cause of death. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the judge's inquiry or the admission of testimony, and sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict regarding causation. The court also affirmed the award of full benefits to the minor children, noting the surviving spouse's waiver of her claim, and the award of lump sum attorney's fees without discount.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackEmployment CausationJury InquiryHearsay EvidenceMedical Expert TestimonyTrial ProcedureDeath BenefitsLump Sum Attorney's FeesAppellate Review
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,571 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