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. NO. 01-13-00108-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2014

Iris Gonzalez v. Diversicare Leasing Corp D/B/A Afton Oaks Nursing Care Center A/K/A Afton Oaks Nursing and Rehab Center Diversicare Afton Oaks, LLC.

Iris Gonzalez, an employee at a nursing home, sued her employer, Afton Oaks, for personal injuries sustained after tripping over crates on an employee pathway. The trial court dismissed her lawsuit for failure to file an expert report under the Texas Medical Liability Act, categorizing it as a health care liability claim. Gonzalez appealed, arguing it was an ordinary negligence claim unrelated to health care. The Court of Appeals, relying on a recent decision in Williams v. Riverside General Hospital, Inc., held that a 'garden-variety slip-and-fall claim that is completely untethered from the provision of health care' does not constitute a health care liability safety claim. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Slip and FallOrdinary NegligenceTexas Medical Liability ActHealth Care Liability ClaimEmployer LiabilityNursing HomePremises LiabilityWorkers' CompensationExpert ReportAppellate Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Pierce

The case involves a workers' compensation claim by Pierce against Charter Oak, stemming from a work-related accident where Pierce lost a finger and sustained a 30% permanent partial loss of use of his hand. Charter Oak appealed a trial court judgment, contending it was not properly credited for voluntary payments made to Pierce prior to trial. The appellate court found that the trial court's method of calculating the remaining compensation by subtracting weeks rather than the total amount paid was incorrect. The court agreed with Charter Oak, reforming the judgment to correctly apply credit for the $3,570 already paid. Consequently, the judgment was reformed to $1,910.29, including 4% interest, and then affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityHand InjuryFinger InjuryVoluntary PaymentsCredit for PaymentsJudgment ReformationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Currie

This workers' compensation case involves Chester Currie, Jr.'s claim for benefits against Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company. Following a third-party action that yielded a $9,900.00 recovery, split between Currie and Charter Oak, the trial court initially refused to grant Charter Oak an offset for benefits already paid and Currie's share of the third-party recovery, entering judgment for Currie for $8,330.00. The appellate court examined the applicability of TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 8307, § 6a, which governs how third-party recoveries are applied against workers' compensation benefits to prevent double recovery. The court concluded that Charter Oak was entitled to an offset, determining that the entire $9,900.00 constituted an 'advance fund.' Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a new judgment, awarding Currie $1,260.00 after accounting for the offset.

Workers' CompensationThird Party RecoveryOffsetDouble RecoveryStatutory InterpretationTexas LawInsuranceAppellate ReviewAdvance FundReimbursement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hammerly Oaks, Inc. v. Edwards

Darrell Edwards, a resident of an apartment complex owned by Hammerly Oaks, Inc., was brutally assaulted in a vacant apartment adjoining his. The assailants included Roman Gonzales, an independent contractor hired by Hammerly Oaks to clean carpets. Edwards sued Hammerly Oaks, and a jury found negligence and gross negligence, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court subsequently disregarded the findings of gross negligence and punitive damages. The court of appeals modified the trial court's judgment to award punitive damages, concluding that the leasing agent, Marilyn Montgomery, was a vice principal and grossly negligent for failing to warn Edwards of threats made by Gonzales. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment regarding punitive damages. The Court held that Marilyn Montgomery was not a vice principal, and the jury was not properly instructed or asked to consider nondelegable duties or premises defects concerning other employees (Rose Britton, Frank Smotek). Consequently, the Supreme Court modified the court of appeals' judgment by deleting the award of punitive damages and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

Punitive DamagesGross NegligenceCorporate LiabilityVice PrincipalRespondeat SuperiorNondelegable DutyPremises LiabilityApartment ComplexAssaultEmployee Conduct
References
14
Case No. NO. 09-20-00292-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

OHAH, Ltd., D/B/A Oak Haven Apartment Homes v. LNG Builders, LLC, Odom Texas Development, LLC and the City of Shenandoah

Appellant OHAH, Ltd., d/b/a Oak Haven Apartment Homes (Oak Haven) appealed the trial court’s final judgment granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees LNG Builders, LLC (LNG), Odom Texas Development, LLC (OTD), and the City of Shenandoah (the City). The dispute concerned an easement and drainage line built by the defendants on Oak Haven’s property. Oak Haven initially sued LNG and OTD for trespass, seeking injunctive relief and damages, alleging they had no right to construct a drainage line across its property. The City intervened, claiming an 80-foot utility easement (80’ U.E.) by dedication from a 2000 plat, which it claimed allowed LNG to build the drainage line. The trial court initially denied Oak Haven's temporary injunction, later granted Oak Haven's motion for partial summary judgment, but then vacated that order and granted summary judgments for LNG, OTD, and the City, and issued a take-nothing judgment against Oak Haven. The Court of Appeals found that the plat language referencing an "80’ U.E." was unclear as to whether it created a new easement for public use or merely marked a pre-existing easement for G.S.U. Even assuming an easement was dedicated, the Court concluded that LNG and OTD are not "public utilities" and their construction of a drainage line for OTD's private property drainage was inconsistent with the scope of a public utility easement, thus exceeding any purported grant. The Court also rejected OTD's and LNG's claims of derivative sovereign immunity, stating that a City permit does not immunize private contractors acting for a private property owner from tort liability. The Court determined the trial court erred in denying Oak Haven's motion for partial summary judgment and granting summary judgments for OTD and LNG on trespass and other claims, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant summary judgment for the City on non-suited claims. The appellate court vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

Easement DisputeDrainage LineTrespassSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPublic UtilitiesSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationProperty RightsConstruction Law
References
44
Case No. 04-15-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2015

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality & Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. v. Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District

This is an opening brief from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and Post Oak Clean Green, Inc. (Post Oak), appealing the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction by the 2nd 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County. The case concerns the Guadalupe County Groundwater Conservation District's (the District) suit seeking a declaration that Post Oak's proposed landfill violates District Rule 8.1, even though Post Oak's permit application is still under review by the TCEQ. Appellants argue that the District's claim is not ripe, is impermissibly redundant of judicial review remedies, and that the District lacks standing due to a non-redressable injury. They contend that the TCEQ has exclusive or primary jurisdiction over landfill permitting and that District rules cannot supersede a TCEQ permit. The brief requests reversal of the trial court's order and dismissal of the District's suit.

Environmental LawLandfill PermittingGroundwater ConservationJurisdiction DisputeAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment ActRipeness DoctrineStanding (Law)Exclusive JurisdictionPrimary Jurisdiction
References
195
Case No. 02-11-00147-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2012

Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company v. Gene Swanigan

This case involves an appeal by Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company regarding a workers' compensation claim filed by Gene Swanigan. Swanigan sustained a work-related finger injury on May 18, 2006, subsequently diagnosed as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD)/Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS) by his treating physicians. While Charter Oak accepted the initial injury, it disputed the extension to RSD/CRPS, leading to administrative and district court proceedings. A jury in Tarrant County found Swanigan's injury to be the producing cause of his condition. On appeal, the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that legally sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings.

Workers' CompensationReflex Sympathetic DystrophyComplex Regional Pain SyndromeMedical CausationExpert WitnessSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingPain ManagementWorkplace InjuryInsurance Dispute
References
27
Case No. 03-08-00059-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2010

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Twelve Oaks Medical Center

This document presents a concurring and dissenting opinion in an appeal before the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin. The case involves Pacific Employers Insurance Company as the appellant and Twelve Oaks Medical Center as the appellee, appealing a district court decision regarding judicial review of a workers' compensation medical dispute resolution. The dissenting justice agrees with the majority that Twelve Oaks Medical Center failed to exercise due diligence in serving the appellant. However, the dissent argues that the majority erred in dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction, contending that limitations is an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional defect in this context. The dissenting justice would have reversed the district court's order granting remand and instead rendered judgment in favor of Pacific Employers Insurance Company, asserting that the suit was barred by limitations.

Limitations DefenseDue DiligenceAppellate ProcedureJurisdictional DefectsAffirmative DefenseWorkers' CompensationMedical Dispute ResolutionAdministrative LawService of ProcessSummary Judgment Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watkins v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co.

In this worker’s compensation case, claimant Edward Watkins appealed a trial court’s 'take nothing judgment' after a jury found he had not sustained an injury as alleged. Watkins claimed a back injury on September 10, 1976, while working for Vector Cable Company. The defendant, Charter Oak, contended Watkins’ disability stemmed from a prior injury suffered in December 1975 at Taylor Forge Company, for which he received prior worker’s compensation benefits. Watkins argued that evidence regarding these prior benefits was inadmissible under the collateral source rule. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the evidence was admissible to rebut Watkins' testimony and claims, and that the jury's finding of no injury was supported by the evidence presented.

Worker's CompensationBack InjuryPrior InjuryCollateral Source RuleAdmissibility of EvidenceJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCauley v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co.

The applicant, Timothy McCauley, sued Charter Oak Fire Insurance Company for a worker's compensation claim. After initial jury deadlock, the jury returned a partial verdict where different sets of ten jurors answered conditional special issues, violating Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 292, which requires the same ten jurors to concur on all answers. The trial court entered judgment for the defendant, leading to McCauley's appeal. The appellate court held that Rule 292 is mandatory and that it was error for the trial judge to receive a verdict not answered by the concurrence of the same ten jurors. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationJury VerdictTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 292Jury DeliberationConditional IssuesSame Ten JurorsVerdict RequirementsTrial Court ErrorReversal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 519 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