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. 23-0697
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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

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

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. 14-18-01059-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

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

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. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

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

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Robert T. Minor filed a worker's compensation suit against Harrison and Walker Construction Company, alleging total and permanent disability due to an injury sustained during employment. The jury found that Minor did not sustain an injury on the alleged date, leading to a take-nothing judgment. Minor appealed, challenging the exclusion of notations from Dr. Thomas Glover's record regarding his low back pain and its origin from construction work. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the exclusion of 'Low back pain' harmless and the notation about the injury's origin inadmissible under the circumstances, and that the appellant failed to re-offer the evidence when it became admissible as rebuttal.

Worker's CompensationHearsay RuleMedical Records AdmissibilityEvidence ExclusionReversible ErrorCumulative EvidenceExpert OpinionSelf-Serving DeclarationsRebuttal EvidenceAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. W2008-02605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2009

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves an appeal stemming from a minor automobile accident where Silvino Gonzales, individually and on behalf of his minor son Rubicel Gonzales, sued Judith Long for whiplash injuries. Although the defendant admitted fault for the accident, she disputed causing any damages. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant despite testimony from Dr. Michael Douglas Hellman, who opined that Rubicel was injured by the accident. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the admission of evidence questioning Dr. Hellman's credibility and arguing the jury's verdict was unsupported. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the circuit court's decision, concluding that the challenged evidence was relevant to witness credibility and that material evidence supported the jury's finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove injury or causation.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryWhiplashMedical Expert TestimonyJury VerdictEvidence AdmissibilityWitness CredibilityCausation DisputeAppeal AffirmationTennessee Appellate Court
References
25
Case No. 11-22-00273-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2024

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

This workers' compensation death benefits case addresses whether pancreatic cancer, experienced by a firefighter, is a compensable injury arising from their employment under Texas law. The central issue revolved around which party held the burden of proof to establish that the cancerous condition was a compensable injury. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed the 266th District Court of Erath County's decision. The Court clarified that Section 607.055 of the Government Code requires the claimant to initially establish a general causal link between their cancer and specific occupational exposures, as determined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Concluding that the appellees failed to meet this statutory burden because the IARC's 98th Monograph did not associate pancreatic cancer with firefighting, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the City.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPancreatic CancerFirefighter PresumptionOccupational DiseaseBurden of ProofStatutory InterpretationIARCCausationTexas Law
References
100
Case No. 13-06-237-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

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

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. W2004-01225-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This appellate case concerns the termination of parental rights for Chinese immigrant biological parents (the Hes) to their minor child, A.M.H. The Hes, facing financial difficulties and immigration issues, initially placed A.M.H. with foster parents (the Bakers), eventually agreeing to a juvenile court order transferring custody and guardianship. Despite continued visits, the Hes paid no child support. After a confrontation and cessation of visits, the Bakers petitioned for adoption and termination of parental rights due to abandonment. The Hes sought to regain custody, citing cultural factors and temporary intent. The Chancery Court terminated the Hes' parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of willful failure to visit but reversed the finding of willful failure to support and the application of other termination grounds, while upholding the termination based on abandonment by willful failure to visit and the child's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Custody DisputeAdoption ProceedingsAbandonment (Child)Willful Failure to VisitWillful Failure to SupportImmigration StatusDue ProcessSuperior Parental Rights DoctrineConsent Order
References
106
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1995

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

The court consolidated two Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, In re Minor and In re Mills, concerning objections by the Chapter 13 Trustee to the debtors' claims of exemption for lump-sum workers' compensation benefits. Debtors Kevin S. Minor, Angela D. Minor, and Martin Blaine Mills had received these settlements post-confirmation and sought to exempt them under Tennessee law. The primary issues resolved by Chief Judge Richard S. Stair, Jr. were whether these awards constituted property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1306(a) and whether they should be included as "disposable income" for plan confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1325(b)(2). The court held that workers' compensation awards are indeed property of the estate and, despite state law exemptions, must be included in the calculation of disposable income to be applied to the Chapter 13 plan, to the extent not reasonably necessary for the debtors' support or business operations. Consequently, the Trustee's objection to amended exemptions was sustained in part, affirming that the benefits are property of the estate and disposable income, but overruled in part as debtors could still claim exemption under state law.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationExemptionsDisposable IncomeProperty of EstatePost-Confirmation ModificationBankruptcy CodeTennessee LawLump Sum SettlementStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,375 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