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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Security National Insurance Co. v. Farmer

Roger Farmer sustained two on-the-job low back injuries in January 1995 and April 1998. Security National Insurance Company was the carrier for the first injury, and Hartford Fire Insurance Company for the second. Disputes arose regarding the compensability of Farmer's L4-5 and L5-S1 disc herniations after April 1998, and which carrier was liable. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission appeals panel affirmed the hearing officer's decision against Security National, finding the January 1995 injury was a producing cause. Security National appealed to the trial court, which applied a substantial evidence rule, limited discovery, and affirmed the appeals panel's decision. On appeal, the higher court determined the trial court erred by applying the incorrect standard of review, ruling that a modified de novo standard should have been used. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with a modified de novo review.

Standard of ReviewModified De Novo ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewCompensability DisputeEligibility for BenefitsDisc Herniation InjurySpinal Injury ClaimInsurance Carrier DisputeAdministrative Law AppealStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. NO. 02-11-00155-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Security National Insurance Company v. Duncan Murrell

Duncan Murrell, an employee of Warnick Metal Building Erector, sustained severe injuries after falling through a roof on a jobsite. His employer's insurer, Security National Insurance Company, denied his workers' compensation claim, alleging intoxication from marijuana. A jury in the 17th District Court of Tarrant County found Murrell was not intoxicated, a decision upheld by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel. Security National appealed this finding to the Second District Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, raising issues regarding the legal sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, disability, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury's finding of no intoxication was supported by legally sufficient evidence and that any jury charge error was not preserved.

Workers' Compensation AppealIntoxication DefenseMarijuana MetabolitesUrine Drug TestingLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingBurden of ProofRebuttable PresumptionControlled SubstanceIndustrial Toxicology
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garner v. East Texas National Bank of Palestine

Roy and Charla Garner filed suit against Phillip O. Watson and East Texas National Bank, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection acts for failure to make proper disclosures in a consumer credit transaction. The Garners had contracted with Watson to build a home, executing a lien contract and note. Watson then transferred his interest in the contract to East Texas National Bank to secure an interim construction loan. The Garners contended the Bank was liable as a 'subsequent assignee' for Watson's original non-disclosures and for its own alleged failures during a note renewal. The trial court rendered a take-nothing judgment, prompting an appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding sufficient admissible evidence to support the implied finding that the Bank held only a security interest in the Garners' note and was therefore not a 'subsequent assignee' liable under the consumer credit laws.

Consumer Credit LawTruth in Lending ActSecurity InterestsAssignment (Law)Parol Evidence RuleContract InterpretationAppellate ProcedureImplied Findings of FactFinancial Disclosure RequirementsReal Estate Finance
References
8
Case No. 09-19-00101-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

Brian W. Justice v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, on Behalf of the Registered Holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities I Trust 2007-AC2, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-AV2

Brian W. Justice appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, regarding a breach of contract and judicial foreclosure claim. Justice had defaulted on a promissory note, leading Wells Fargo to seek foreclosure on his property. Following a summary judgment for Wells Fargo, Justice, through an attorney, moved to set aside the judgment and for a new trial, arguing he lacked notice due to being out of state. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Justice failed to prove his failure to respond was not due to conscious indifference and that Wells Fargo had adequately demonstrated its status as the note holder. Additionally, the court ruled that Justice waived his objection to attorney's fees by not raising it at the trial level.

Summary Judgment AppealBreach of ContractJudicial ForeclosurePromissory Note DefaultHome EquityDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceHolder of Note
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Luca v. United Nations Organization

A former United Nations security officer filed a lawsuit against the United Nations and eight of its officials, alleging breach of contract, forgery, negligence, civil rights violations, and denial of medical benefits. The plaintiff claimed the U.N. failed to reimburse him for 1988 taxes, issued a fraudulent final pay statement with a forged signature, and unlawfully denied him continued health insurance coverage after his resignation. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting immunity under international and federal law. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with prejudice, finding that the United Nations and its officials were immune from the action for acts performed in their official capacities.

ImmunityInternational OrganizationsUnited NationsDiplomatic ImmunitySovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractEmployment LawTax ReimbursementMedical BenefitsOfficial Capacity
References
10
Case No. 01-08-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Robert O'Conor, Jr. v. the Frost National Bank

Robert O'Conor, Jr. appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Frost National Bank and denial of his cross-motion. O'Conor had filed an invasion of privacy counterclaim against Frost for disclosing his Social Security Number (SSN) in financial documents filed with the court as part of Frost's claim for O'Conor's failure to pay a promissory note. O'Conor argued that Frost violated the Social Security Act, the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and common law invasion of privacy, and that his SSN was constitutionally protected. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no private right of action under the Social Security Act, the Texas Business and Commerce Code's "court records" exception applied, and no common law invasion of privacy occurred.

Social Security Number DisclosureInvasion of PrivacySummary JudgmentPromissory NoteTexas LawFederal LawConstitutional RightsAppellate ReviewBanking LitigationIdentity Theft Concerns
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMahan Securities Co. v. Aviator Master Fund, Ltd.

Petitioner McMahan Securities Co., L.R., a securities broker-dealer, sought to stay an arbitration claim initiated by various hedge funds and institutional investors (respondents) before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), now FINRA. The arbitration claim arose from respondents' purchase of $50 million worth of preferred stock units from nonparties Strategy Real Estate Investments, Ltd. (SREI) and Strategy International Insurance Group, Inc. (SIIG), where McMahan acted as a placement agent. Respondents alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Blue Sky laws, claiming McMahan failed to disclose criminal convictions and legal problems of Strategy's management team and misrepresented Strategy's financial status. McMahan argued that respondents were not its 'customers' under NASD rule 12200 and that a forum selection clause in the subscription agreement precluded arbitration. The court denied McMahan's petition, finding that respondents qualified as McMahan's customers under a broad interpretation of NASD rules and that the dispute arose from McMahan's business activities, thus compelling arbitration. The court also rejected McMahan's attempt to invoke the subscription agreement's forum selection clause, as McMahan was not a signatory to that agreement.

ArbitrationSecurities LawNASD Code of Arbitration ProcedureFINRAPlacement AgentFraud AllegationsNegligent MisrepresentationBlue Sky LawsContract InterpretationForum Selection Clause
References
27
Case No. 21-0941
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2023

Pnc Mortgage, a Division of Pnc Bank, N.A. Successor to National City Bank and National City Mortgage, a Division of National City Bank of Indiana v. John Howard and Amy Howard

The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed a decision that PNC Mortgage's claim for foreclosure through equitable subrogation was time-barred. PNC, a refinance lender, failed to initiate foreclosure proceedings on its own lien within the statute of limitations after accelerating the Howards' note in 2009. The Court clarified that equitable subrogation provides an alternative remedy, substituting the original creditor's security interest, but does not create an additional claim with a separate accrual date. Therefore, the subrogation claim also accrued upon the acceleration of the refinanced loan, and PNC's failure to act within four years rendered it time-barred. This decision emphasizes that a refinance lender's negligence in preserving its own lien does not impact its entitlement to equitable subrogation, but the claim must still be brought within the statutory limitations period from the acceleration of the underlying note.

MortgageEquitable SubrogationStatute of LimitationsForeclosureReal Property LienTexas LawRefinanceDebt AccelerationAppellate ProcedureJudicial Precedent
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiBlasi v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Frank DiBlasi sought judicial review of a final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, who denied his claim for Supplemental Security Income benefits, citing disability due to depression, diabetes, high cholesterol, and limb numbness. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. DiBlasi appealed, arguing the Appeals Council failed to consider new material evidence (Dr. Rinzler's assessment), erred by not remanding for clarification of a prior medical opinion, and ignored a psychiatrist's letter. The court found the new evidence cumulative and not material, and that earlier records consistently reflected DiBlasi's difficulties. Ultimately, the court determined that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's finding that DiBlasi could perform simple, routine, unskilled tasks with minimal stress and contact, and that such jobs exist in the national economy. The Commissioner's determination was affirmed.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security BenefitsDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilMedical ImpairmentMental ImpairmentDepressionDiabetesGlobal Assessment of Functioning
References
13
Case No. 09-01-511 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2002

American National Insurance Company, and American National Property and Casualty Company v. Frank E. Cannon, II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated

This is an interlocutory appeal from a class certification order. American National Insurance Company (ANICO) and American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) appealed the certification of a class action brought by former agents (Frank E. Cannon II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover). The agents alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Insurance Code, seeking declaratory judgments regarding non-compete provisions and repayment of advance agreements. The appellate court found that individual issues, such as the reasonableness of non-compete restrictions and reliance on oral representations for advance payments, predominated over common issues. Consequently, the court determined that the requirements for class certification under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)(4), (b)(2), and (b)(1)(A) were not satisfied. The class certification order was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealContract DisputeNon-compete ClauseAgent AgreementsInsurance AgentsDeclaratory JudgmentStandingRipenessPredominance
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 3,943 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