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

State of Texas Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas Texas Medical Board Texas Health and Human Services Commission And Ken Paxton, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Lazaro Loe, Individually and as Next Friend of Luna Loe, a Minor Mary Moe and Matthew Moe, Individually and as Next Friends of Maeve Moe, a Minor Nora Noe, Individually and as Next Friend of Nathan Noe, a Minor Sarah Soe and Steven Soe, Individually and as Next Friends of Samantha Soe, a Minor Gina Goe, Individually and as Next Friend of Grayson Goe, a Minor Pflag, Inc. Richard Ogden Roberts III, M.D. David L. Paul, M.D. Patrick W. O'malley, M.D. And American Association of Physicians for Human

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Person v. Safeco Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal concerning death benefits under the Worker's Compensation Act following the death of employee Cornelia Skinner Person. The deceased, an office employee for Piper's Exxon Distributing Company, was killed when a pickup truck intentionally driven by Charles Wilson, with passenger Cora Diane Jamerson, crashed into her office. The trial court initially found that the death arose out of and in the course of her employment and that the minor plaintiffs were partial dependents entitled to benefits. The defendant appealed these findings, arguing against the compensability of the death and the dependency status of the minor plaintiffs. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the assault and death had a rational causal connection to the employee's work and that the minor plaintiffs were indeed partial dependents.

Worker's CompensationDeath BenefitsEmployment AccidentDependentsPartial DependentsAssault During EmploymentCausal ConnectionAppellate ReviewTennessee LawTrial Court Affirmation
References
3
Case No. W2008-02605-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2009

Silvino Gonzales, Invidually and as Next Friend of Rubcel Gonzales, a Minor v. Judith Long

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. W2006-00584-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2006

Edwin R. Oliver, Individually as Next Friend of Edwin C. Oliver, a Minor v. Prologis Trust

This is a premises liability case where minor plaintiff Edwin C. Oliver sustained a severe foot injury while assisting an independent contractor, Steve Graves, on property owned by defendant ProLogis Trust. Initially, a workers' compensation claim was filed, resulting in a judgment for the plaintiff, but this was later reversed on appeal, finding ProLogis was not a statutory employer. The negligence claim against ProLogis proceeded, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of ProLogis, concluding the premises owner owed no duty to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that Graves was an independent contractor and none of the exceptions to the general rule of non-liability for an employer of an independent contractor applied, thus ProLogis was not liable for Oliver's injuries.

Premises liabilityIndependent contractorNegligenceSummary judgmentDuty of careMinor injuryForklift accidentWorkers' compensationAppellate reviewStatutory employer
References
28
Case No. 06-01-00034-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2002

Terry Allen and Wife, Brenda Allen, Individually and A/N/F Matthew Allen, a Minor, Timothy Allen, a Minor and Jennifer Allen, a Minor v. a & T Transportation Company, Inc.

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. 2:97CV005
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 1998

Winn v. PANOLA-HARRISON ELEC. CO-OP, INC.

Kevin Douglas Winn, a lineman for Panola-Harrison Electric Cooperative, Inc., was fatally electrocuted. His surviving wife, Angela Renea Winn, and minor child, Jessica Paige Winn, filed a wrongful death lawsuit alleging negligence, gross negligence, and strict liability. Panola-Harrison, covered by Workers' Compensation Insurance, moved for summary judgment, arguing the Texas Workers' Compensation Act barred the negligence claim. The U.S. District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division, granted partial summary judgment, dismissing the negligence claims. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the decedent opted out of workers' compensation coverage or that proper notice of coverage was not given, thus upholding the Act's bar on negligence claims. However, the court denied summary judgment on the gross negligence claims, affirming their viability under Section 408.001(b) of the Texas Labor Code, and also denied a motion to strike the plaintiffs' response.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathNegligenceGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeElectrocutionEmployment LawPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. 14-18-01059-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Rose A. Munguia, as Next Friend of E.S.U., a Minor and J.M.U., a Minor v. Justrod, Inc.

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. 2024 NY Slip Op 24320
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2024

D.P. v. S.P.

This case involves a custody dispute between D.P. (Plaintiff) and S.P. (Defendant) concerning their two minor children in Westchester County, New York. The defendant sought to compel the plaintiff to release psychotherapy notes and medical records from her former and current mental health professionals (Dr. O.K. and Dr. A.L.). The defendant argued these records were essential for trial preparation, alleging the plaintiff had a personality disorder and received in-patient psychiatric treatment. The plaintiff and the treating professionals' counsel opposed, asserting confidentiality and that substantial medical records had already been disclosed to a court-appointed forensic evaluator. The court affirmed that psychotherapy notes can be discoverable in custody cases but ruled that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the specific information sought was not already available from the extensive records previously provided. Consequently, the defendant's motion for disclosure was denied, and the plaintiff's cross-motion to deny the disclosure was granted.

Custody DisputeChild WelfarePsychotherapy Notes DisclosureMental Health RecordsParental FitnessConfidentiality WaiverProtective OrderIn Camera ReviewBest Interests of the ChildForensic Evaluation
References
15
Case No. 04-99-00130-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2000

Maternidad De Los Santos v. Martha Gonzalez A/N/F of Eduardo A. Gonzalez,a Minor Child

This appeal concerned the denial of a motion for new trial and to set aside a default judgment against Maternidad de los Santos in a medical malpractice case. The appellee, Martha Gonzalez, on behalf of her minor son Eduardo, had obtained a default judgment after Maternidad failed to file an answer. Maternidad argued that its failure to answer was due to accident or mistake, it possessed a meritorious defense, and a new trial would not prejudice the plaintiff. The appellate court applied the three-pronged Craddock test, concluding that Maternidad had satisfied all requirements. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding an abuse of discretion, and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionMedical MalpracticeCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseProcedural ErrorAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
21
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

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
Showing 1-10 of 12,405 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