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

In the Interest of A.P.P., a Minor Child

This case involves an appeal brought by the biological mother of A.P.P. following a default judgment that removed her as the sole managing conservator and appointed the biological father as a joint managing conservator. The appellant contended that the trial court erred by ordering the default judgment and denying her motion for new trial. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial based on the "Craddock" elements, which require establishing that the failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, presenting a meritorious defense, and ensuring no delay or injury to the plaintiff. The court found that the appellant satisfied all three prongs, concluding that the trial court abused its discretion. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for a trial on the merits.

Default Judgment ReversalMotion for New TrialCraddock TestParent-Child ConservatorshipChild Custody ModificationBest Interest of ChildAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewConscious IndifferenceMeritorious Defense
References
0
Case No. 01-02-00542-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Michelle Ramirez, Ind. & on Behalf of the Estate of Jesus Ramirez v. Worthington Contractors, Inc.

Michelle Ramirez, individually and on behalf of her deceased husband's estate and their three minor children, appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Worthington Constructors, Inc., Worthington Pavers, Inc., and David E. Worthington. This wrongful death action arose after Jesus Ramirez, a day laborer for Worthington's independent contractor, died from injuries sustained after falling from a pickup truck. Ramirez contended that Worthington retained control over the independent contractor and thus had a duty to provide a safe work environment for Ramirez. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Worthington owed no legal duty to Ramirez because he was not an employee and Worthington did not retain control over the independent contractor or his employee. The accident occurred after work was finished and off the work site, not as a result of an unsafe work environment.

Wrongful deathSummary judgmentIndependent contractorEmployer liabilityDuty of careRight to controlWorkplace accidentAppellate reviewTexas lawSubcontractor
References
10
Case No. 10-14-00157-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2015

Thomas H. Sinclair v. Estate of Fernando Ramirez and Eva Ramirez, Individually, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Fernando Ramirez, and on Behalf of All Wrongful Death Beneficiaries

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a wrongful death and survivorship action. Appellant Thomas H. Sinclair challenges the verdict in favor of the Estate of Fernando Ramirez and Eva Ramirez. Fernando Ramirez died after an altercation at Sinclair's cabaret, following heavy drinking. The jury found Sinclair partly responsible, but the appellate court reversed the judgment, concluding that the appellees failed to present legally sufficient causation evidence directly connecting Sinclair’s purported negligence with the decedent’s death due to the lack of expert medical testimony ruling out other plausible causes.

NegligenceProximate CauseWrongful DeathSurvivorship ActionExpert TestimonyMedical CausationBlunt Force Head InjuriesAlcohol IntoxicationAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency
References
37
Case No. 04-22-00450-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. v. Plains Marketing, L.P., Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Plains Pipeline, L.P.

This appellate case reviews a trial court's order imposing monetary sanctions against Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. (Appellants) in favor of Plains Marketing, L.P.; Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.; and Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Appellees). The sanctions, totaling $482,895.92, were levied under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for alleged groundless pleadings, false testimony, and discovery abuses. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion, concluding that many findings lacked evidentiary support, were conclusory, or addressed matters not properly raised in the sanctions motion. The court further determined that Appellees failed to overcome the presumption of good faith regarding Appellants' filings. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's sanctions order, rendering judgment that Appellees take nothing on their motion.

SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure Rule 13Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10Groundless ClaimsBad FaithDiscovery AbuseSummary JudgmentDue Process
References
53
Case No. 14-15-00695-cv
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2015

Garden Ridge, L.P. v. Clear Lake Center, L.P.

This is an appeal brief filed by Clear Lake Center, L.P. (Cross-Appellant/Appellee) against Garden Ridge, L.P. (Appellant/Cross-Appellee). The case stems from a dispute over alleged overpayments of management fees under a commercial real property lease. The trial court's judgment awarded Garden Ridge L.P. $594,700 in damages and $350,000 in attorneys' fees. Clear Lake Center, L.P. argues that Garden Ridge's claims are precluded by affirmative defenses such as waiver, ratification, novation, accord and satisfaction, and estoppel. They also contend that the trial court erred by excluding critical evidence and that the findings of liability and damages are unsustainable. Clear Lake Center, L.P. requests the appellate court to reverse the judgment and render judgment in its favor, or, in the alternative, remand the case for a new trial.

Contractual DisputeCommercial Real Estate LeaseManagement Fee OverchargesAffirmative DefensesEquitable EstoppelParol Evidence RuleBreach of ContractAttorneys' Fees CalculationStatute of LimitationsAppellate Procedure
References
69
Case No. W2012-00925-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2013

Hill Boren, P.C. v. Paty, Rymer and Ulin, P.C. and James Eric Hamm

This case involves an attorney’s fee dispute between two law firms and their client. Hill Boren, P.C. and Paty, Rymer & Ulin, P.C. jointly represented James Eric Hamm in a personal injury suit. Hamm later discharged Hill Boren, P.C., and Paty, Rymer & Ulin, P.C. continued the representation, settling the case and retaining the entire contingency fee. Hill Boren, P.C. sued for a share of the fee, alleging breach of contract and misrepresentation, among other claims. The defendants argued that Hill Boren, P.C. was limited to quantum meruit due to termination for cause. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Hamm’s termination of Hill Boren, P.C. was for cause due to a lack of communication, limiting Hill Boren’s recovery to quantum meruit.

Attorney Fee DisputeContingency Fee AgreementQuantum MeruitFELA Railroad CaseClient-Attorney DischargeProfessional MalpracticeSummary Judgment AppealContract BreachFraudulent MisrepresentationIntentional Interference
References
45
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. 01-12-00216-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2014

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery L.P. v. Maintenance Supply Headquarters, LP

Appellants Hand & Wrist Center, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery, L.P. appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Maintenance Supply Headquarters, L.P., concerning a breach of contract claim. The dispute arose from a "Letter of Guarantee" signed by Maintenance Supply for medical services provided to an injured employee, Daniel Contreras, whose workers' compensation claim was denied. Maintenance Supply argued estoppel and the applicability of the Labor Code's exclusive remedies provision. The Court of Appeals found the estoppel defense inapplicable and, crucially, ruled that Labor Code section 408.001(a)'s exclusive remedies provision applies only to employees and their beneficiaries, not to health care providers. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentWorkers' compensationExclusive remedyHealth care providersStatutory interpretationTexas Labor CodeEstoppelLetter of GuaranteeAppellate review
References
10
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 08026
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2014

Matter of Chloe P. Mc. (Lajohn M.--Danielle P.)

This case involves an appeal by Danielle P. from an order of the Family Court, Kings County, dated August 21, 2013, which awarded Lajohn M. supervised visitation with the subject child, Chloe P. Mc. The Appellate Division, Second Department, dismissed the appeal. The court found that no appeal lies from an order entered on the consent of the appealing party, as Danielle P. had consented to the supervised visits.

Family LawChild VisitationSupervised VisitationAppeal DismissedConsent OrderAppellate ProcedureParental RightsChild WelfareFamily CourtAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03590
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2021

Matter of Isabela P. (Jacob P.)

In this case, Jacob P., the father, appealed an order of disposition from the Family Court, Queens County, which found that he neglected his child, Isabela P. The Administration for Children's Services initiated the proceeding, alleging the father failed to provide adequate supervision and guardianship. The Family Court's finding of neglect was based on evidence that the father repeatedly made false reports of sexual abuse against the mother in the child's presence and encouraged the child to corroborate these allegations. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the father's actions created an imminent danger of emotional impairment to the child, thus failing to meet the minimum degree of parental care.

Child NeglectParental MisconductFalse AllegationsFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewEmotional ImpairmentPreponderance of EvidenceJudicial DeferenceChild WelfareCustody Dispute
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,938 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