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. 13-04-224-CV and 13-04-358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham, Jr. v. Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez, Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada, and Wife, Becky Ortiz

This case involves consolidated appeals concerning debt collection and alleged tortious conduct. Appellants, G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham, Jr., sought to satisfy a 1990 judgment debt against Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez and Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada by attempting to levy against Schor's, a business owned by Becky Ortiz. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgments determining the 1990 debt was contractual and Schor's was Ortiz's special community property, not subject to the debt. Ortiz also filed counterclaims for damages including abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, for which a jury awarded her damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgments regarding the nature of the debt and the status of Schor's property. However, it reversed the judgment awarding damages to Ortiz, finding no evidence to support her counterclaims for tortious conduct, thus negating the basis for punitive and mental anguish damages.

Texas Court of AppealsConsolidated AppealsDeclaratory JudgmentEx Parte ReceivershipCommunity Property LawContractual DebtTort ClaimsAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionDefamation
References
76
Case No. 08-00-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

SCM Management, Inc./Manuela Ortiz v. Ortiz, Manuela/SCM Management, Inc.

Manuela Ortiz, a housekeeper, sued SCM Management, Inc. for wrongful discharge under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, alleging retaliation for her intent to file a worker's compensation claim due to worsening hand pain. A jury found in favor of Ortiz, awarding damages for lost wages and mental anguish, but the trial court excluded exemplary damages. SCM appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish. Ortiz cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish, but agreed that there was insufficient evidence for exemplary damages.

Worker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawMental AnguishExemplary DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceLost WagesMitigation of DamagesTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. Furr's Supermarkets

Javier Ortiz, an employee of S & M Cleaning, was assaulted by Furr's night stockers. Ortiz sued Furr's and S & M for various forms of negligence. The jury found Ortiz was a borrowed servant of Furr's and that both Furr's and S & M were negligent. The trial court reduced Ortiz's damages. On appeal, the court reversed the finding that Ortiz was a borrowed servant of Furr's, thus nullifying the non-subscriber negligence claim against Furr's. The court also found factually insufficient evidence for the jury's awards for past and future mental anguish and past loss of earnings, remanding these for redetermination. However, the finding of S & M's negligence was upheld.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ActNegligenceBorrowed Servant DoctrineMental AnguishLost EarningsProportionate Responsibility ActDamagesAppellate ReviewFactual Sufficiency
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. Colvin

Plaintiff Noemi Ortiz sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Disability Insurance Benefits (DIB). Ortiz alleged disability since August 11, 2011, but an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found her not disabled, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. Before the District Court, Ortiz argued the Commissioner's decision lacked substantial evidence and was based on legal errors, specifically regarding the ALJ's assessment of her residual functional capacity (RFC) and medical opinions. The Court found the ALJ's RFC determination supported by substantial evidence and that any errors in incorporating medical opinions or misattributions were harmless. Consequently, Ortiz's motion to vacate was denied, the Commissioner's cross-motion was granted, and Ortiz's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Disability BenefitsSocial SecurityJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawResidual Functional CapacityMedical OpinionsAsthmaShoulder PainWrist InjuryTenosynovitis
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albertson's, Inc. v. Ortiz

Albertson's Inc. appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to Rachel Ortiz and John Downes, volunteer supporters of the United Farm Workers (UFW), who were arrested for leafleting at an Albertson's store in Austin. Ortiz and Downes sued Albertson's for the denial of their individual rights under the Texas Constitution. The central issue was whether the Texas Constitution's bill of rights is self-executing, creating a cause of action for damages against a private entity for infringing free-speech rights. The appellate court concluded that the Texas Constitution does not create such a tort action against private entities, distinguishing it from federal statutes like 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which applies to state actors. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a judgment that Ortiz and Downes take nothing.

Free SpeechTexas Constitution Article I Section 8Constitutional DamagesPrivate Actor LiabilityNLRA PreemptionAgricultural WorkersJudicial Self-ExecutionAppellate ReversalCivil Rights ClaimRetail Solicitation
References
22
Case No. 14-14-00979-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2015

in Re Albert Ortiz

This document is a response to a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Albert Ortiz. Ortiz sought to overturn a trial court's order that limited the scope of a retrial to specific contract and judicial foreclosure issues, arguing for a broader remand that would allow him to introduce new claims. The respondents, PNC, N.A. and Home Loan Services, Inc. (collectively

Mandamus ProceedingLimited Remand ScopeLaw of the Case DoctrineBreach of ContractJudicial ForeclosureSummary Judgment MotionTort ClaimsAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureForeclosure Dispute
References
25
Case No. 14-19-00394-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Gerardo Batista Ortiz v. Builders First Source - South Texas, LP

Gerardo Batista Ortiz was injured during his employment with Builders First Source - South Texas, LP, a nonsubscriber to workers’ compensation. His claim was subject to arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act. After a previous arbitration and related litigation, the claims were re-arbitrated, resulting in an award for Ortiz. Ortiz sought to modify the award to include prejudgment interest and costs, which the arbitrator denied. The trial court confirmed the arbitrator's award and denied Ortiz's motion to modify. On appeal, Ortiz argued that the trial court erred in not granting his motion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the arbitration award accurately reflected the arbitrator's intent and that the court did not have the authority to modify the award to grant additional relief.

ArbitrationPrejudgment InterestPost-judgment InterestCostsFederal Arbitration ActTexas General Arbitration ActArbitration AwardWorkers' Compensation NonsubscriberInjury Benefit PlanAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. 04-99-00345-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2000

Daniel Ortiz v. United Services Automobile Association A/K/A USAA Insurance Company and Gary Goral

This case involves an appeal by Daniel Ortiz challenging the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of United Services Automobile Association (USAA) and Gary Goral in a wrongful termination lawsuit. Ortiz was terminated by USAA for allegedly fraudulently misrepresenting his work hours. After appealing through internal grievance processes, he was offered reinstatement with probation, which he rejected, leading to the revocation of the offer. Ortiz subsequently sued, claiming discrimination and breach of an employment contract. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Ortiz failed to present a genuine issue of material fact on his claims, including those of wrongful termination and breach of an employment contract based on the PGP manual.

Wrongful terminationSummary judgmentAt-will employmentEmployment contractGrievance processFraudulent misrepresentationReinstatement offerConstructive dischargeWaiver on appealTexas employment law
References
20
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01036 [180 AD3d 515]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2020

Ortiz v. Mar-Can Transp. Co., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting defendants Mar-Can Transportation Co., Inc. and Ramonita Matos' motion to renew their summary judgment motion and dismiss the complaint. The court found the lower court properly exercised its discretion in granting renewal to correct a procedural error, as defendants had a right to enforce a prior preclusion order against the plaintiff, Rosalinda Ortiz. Defendants also made a prima facie showing that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, establishing that Ortiz was Mar-Can's special employee at the time of the bus accident. Since Ortiz was precluded from submitting opposition, the dismissal was proper.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial Employee DoctrineSummary Judgment RenewalProcedural Error CorrectionPreclusion Order EnforcementAppellate ReviewEmployment LiabilityBus Accident ClaimsNew York Appellate DivisionCivil Procedure
References
5
Case No. 532221
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Ortiz v. Maintenance

Manuel Ortiz appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The violation stemmed from Ortiz's failure to disclose a prior 2009 work-related injury on his C-3 form and to medical consultants and treating physicians while seeking benefits for a 2013 injury. The Board imposed mandatory and discretionary penalties, including permanent disqualification from future indemnity benefits, citing the 'egregious' and repeated nature of the misrepresentations. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the finding of a violation was supported by substantial evidence and that the imposed penalty was not disproportionate to the offense.

Workers' Compensation FraudMisrepresentation of InjuryIndemnity BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionPrior Injury DisclosureCredibility AssessmentPermanent DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Board AppealMaterial Omission
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 115 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