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. M2017-02492-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2018

LaSonya Robertson v. Clarksville-Montgomery County School System

This slip-and-fall case involves LaSonya Robertson, a middle school teacher, who sued the Clarksville-Montgomery County School System after falling on a wet floor. She alleged negligence by custodians who inadequately placed wet-floor signs. The trial court initially found the school district 75% negligent and Ms. Robertson 25% at fault, awarding her $180,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the school district's negligence and denial of immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act. However, the appellate court reversed the allocation of comparative fault to Ms. Robertson, determining the school district was 100% at fault, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Slip-and-fallPremises liabilityGovernmental tort liabilityComparative faultNegligenceWet floorSchool districtTeacher injuryAppellate reviewOperational decision
References
17
Case No. 01-10-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Microcheck Systems. Inc v. Microcheck Systems, Inc., Chris Zigrossi, Scott Murphy, Mike Smith, Individually and D/B/A CMS Technology AKA CMS Technologies, Michoice Technology Systems, Inc., Jim Hayden, Alex Campbell and Jason Jablecki

Appellants MicroCheck Systems, Inc., MicroCheck Solutions, Inc., and John Manning challenged the trial court's denial of their motion to reinstate a case dismissed for want of prosecution. Their attorney, Scarlett May, failed to appear at a docket call due to a mistaken belief that she had been replaced by new counsel, Patrick Hubbard. The trial court denied the motion, stating a policy against missing docket calls. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion by not applying the correct legal standard, which requires reinstatement if the failure to appear was due to accident or mistake and not conscious indifference. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionMotion to ReinstateAbuse of DiscretionAttorney ErrorMistake of CounselConscious IndifferenceTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 165aAppellate ReviewSubstitution of CounselTrial Court Discretion
References
11
Case No. 01-19-00300-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2021

Michelle Hudson v. Memorial Hospital System

Michelle Hudson sued Memorial Hospital System, Memorial Hermann Health System, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, and C.B. Richard Ellis, Inc. for personal injuries sustained in a malfunctioning elevator on Memorial Hermann's property. Hudson, an employee of Memorial Hermann (a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act), alleged the defendants were negligent and liable under premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Hudson appealed, arguing the trial court incorrectly applied premises liability principles instead of ordinary negligence and that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hudson's claim against Memorial Hermann sounded exclusively in premises liability and she failed to preserve her argument. The court also found Hudson provided insufficient evidence to overcome the no-evidence summary judgment for CBRE and ThyssenKrupp.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityOrdinary NegligenceSummary JudgmentElevator AccidentWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer DutyProperty Manager LiabilityMaintenance ServicesAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. 15-25-00011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, the University of Texas System, and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Gensetix, Inc.

This document is Appellee Gensetix, Inc.'s brief in surreply to an appeal brought by The Board of Regents of the University of Texas System, et al., before the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. Gensetix argues that the district court correctly denied the Appellants' plea to the jurisdiction. The core of Gensetix's argument centers on the Appellants' alleged abuse of Eleventh Amendment immunity, characterizing it as an unlawful 'Taking' of Gensetix's exclusive commercialization rights related to patents. The brief distinguishes the current case from Curadev Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. The Univ. of Tex. Sw. Med. Ctr. by highlighting the presence of disputed jurisdictional facts and the Appellants' invocation of sovereign power. Gensetix contends that the duration of the misappropriation is irrelevant to liability and asserts that some of the Appellants' arguments regarding contract interpretation are unpreserved. The appellee requests that the appellate court affirm the district court's decision.

Eleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityEminent DomainTakings ClausePatent LitigationIntellectual Property RightsCommercialization RightsJurisdictional PleaAppellate ProcedureTexas Courts
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Biscan v. Brown

The provided text is a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., in a case regarding the apportionment of fault in a comparative fault system. While agreeing with the majority on some points, Justice Drowota disagrees with the exclusion of Dana Biscan from fault apportionment, despite Tennessee Code Annotated section 57-10-101 precluding legal liability for furnishing alcohol. The opinion argues that disallowing fault to an "effectively immune" tortfeasor, like Dana Biscan, contradicts established Tennessee comparative fault jurisprudence, particularly McIntyre v. Balentine, Carroll v. Whitney, and Dotson v. Blake. Justice Drowota contends that the majority's approach undermines the principle of linking liability to fault, blinds the jury to relevant evidence, and imposes liability disproportionately, thereby injecting confusion into settled law.

Comparative FaultTort LawAlcohol LiabilityStatutory ImmunityProximate CauseApportionment of FaultJudicial DissentTennessee LawMcIntyre v. BalentineCarroll v. Whitney
References
8
Case No. 13-16-00335-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Lydia Tummel and Harold Tummel, Individually and as Trustee of the Kurt K. Tummel Trust v. Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc.

This case involves a bill-of-review proceeding initiated by Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. against Lydia Tummel and Harold K. Tummel to set aside a prior default judgment. Roadrunner contended that it was not properly served in the initial garnishment suit and that the default judgment resulted from an official mistake by the court clerk, which prevented it from presenting a meritorious defense. The Tummels challenged Roadrunner's arguments and the sufficiency of its evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Roadrunner, concluding that Roadrunner had successfully demonstrated all elements required for a bill of review, including a meritorious defense and that the judgment was rendered without its fault or negligence due to the lack of proper notice from the clerk.

Bill of ReviewSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentGarnishmentOfficial MistakeService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionMeritorious DefenseAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weakley County Municipal Electric System v. Vick

The case involves an appeal by Kenneth Vick and members of Local Union Number 835, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, against an injunction prohibiting picketing of the Weakley County Municipal Electric System. The appeal challenged the constitutionality of the Municipal Electric Plant Law of 1935 as applied to Weakley County and the right of a municipal electric system to enter into collective bargaining agreements with a labor union. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Act. It ruled that while a municipal electric system operates in a proprietary capacity, it remains a governmental agency and thus cannot lawfully enter into collective bargaining agreements with a labor union, making strikes and picketing for such purposes illegal.

Labor DisputeInjunctionPicketingCollective BargainingMunicipal CorporationGovernmental FunctionProprietary FunctionConstitutional LawCounty PowersPublic Employees
References
27
Case No. 05-20-00525-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2022

the University of Texas System v. Diane M. Bartek

Diane M. Bartek, an employee of The University of Texas System, filed a worker's compensation claim for an occupational disease caused by mold exposure. The Division of Worker's Compensation and its appeals panel denied her claim. Bartek then filed a petition for review in the trial court, where a jury found in her favor, awarding her attorney's fees. The University of Texas System appealed, arguing the expert medical opinion on causation provided by Dr. William J. Rea was unreliable and legally insufficient evidence. The appellate court agreed, finding Dr. Rea's opinion was based on unfounded assumptions about continuous mold exposure and unreliable testing methods rejected by the scientific community. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and a take-nothing judgment was rendered in favor of The University of Texas System.

Occupational DiseaseMold ExposureExpert Witness TestimonyCausationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceReliability of Expert OpinionToxic TortAppellate LawTexas Labor CodeMedical Testing Standards
References
27
Case No. 14-18-00896-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

City of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner Controller Chris Brown Council Members Amy Peck, Tarsha Jackson, Abbie Kamin, Carolyn Evans-Shabazz, Dave Martin, Tiffany D. Thomas, Greg Travis, Karla Cisneros, Robert Gallegos, Edward Pollard, Martha Castex-Tatum, Mike Knox, David Robinson, Michael Kubosh, Letitia Plummer, and Sallie Alcorn And Director of Finance Tantri Emo v. Houston Municipal Employee Pension System Board Chairman Sherry Mose Board Vice-Chairman Lenard Polk Board Secretary Rhonda Smith And Board Trustees Roderick J. Newman, Roy W. Sanchez, Lonnie Vara, Barbara Chelette, Denise Castillo-Rhodes, David Donnelly, Edward J. Hamb II, and Adrian Patterson

This case is a continuation of a dispute between the Houston Municipal Employee Pension System and the City of Houston regarding statutorily required pension payments. The Pension System sought a writ of mandamus to compel the City to make these payments and asserted ultra vires claims against city officials. The City raised counterclaims and third-party claims, challenging the Pension System's standing and asserting governmental immunity. The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction and granted summary judgment for the Pension System. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, rejecting the City's arguments concerning independent contractors, 401(k) program eligibility, retrospective relief, contractual claims, and res judicata.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsPension SystemMunicipal EmployeesMandamusSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationTexas Constitutional LawAppellate ReviewEmployee Benefits
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Classen v. Irving Healthcare System

Carol Classen sued her former employer, Irving Healthcare System, alleging retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation benefits, a claim prohibited by Texas law. Irving Healthcare System, a municipal hospital authority and governmental entity, asserted immunity from suit. The trial court and court of appeals sided with Irving Healthcare, concluding that governmental immunity had not been waived for such claims under article 8307c. However, citing a recent precedent set in *City of La Porte v. Barfield*, the Supreme Court of Texas determined that governmental immunity had been partially waived in wrongful discharge cases. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with *Barfield*.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsGovernmental ImmunityWaiver of ImmunityMunicipal Hospital AuthoritySummary JudgmentRemandTexas LawEmployer-Employee DisputeLabor Code
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,051 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