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. ADJ2533587 (MON 0316136) ADJ3316360 (MON 0316137)
Regular

PATRICIA STELLY vs. AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LIBERTY MUTUAL

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a petition for reconsideration filed by Patricia Stelly. The Board reviewed the petition and the report from the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Ultimately, the Board denied Stelly's petition for reconsideration. The denial was based on the reasoning presented in the administrative law judge's report.

Patricia StellyAuto Club of Southern CaliforniaLiberty MutualADJ2533587ADJ3316360Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportAdopted
References
0
Case No. 08-01-00443-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2003

Munoz, Luis v. Munoz, Patricia

This case involves an appeal concerning the property division in the divorce of Luis and Patricia Munoz. Luis Munoz appealed the trial court's characterization of personal injury settlement funds as Patricia Munoz's separate property and argued an abuse of discretion in the overall property division. Patricia sustained significant injuries in an accident, leading to a substantial settlement. The appellate court found the trial court erred in deeming the entire settlement as separate property due to commingling with community funds and the inclusion of community property losses. However, the court affirmed the judgment, concluding that even with the mischaracterization, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a disproportionate division of the community estate to Patricia, considering factors such as disparate earning capacities and the children's needs.

DivorceProperty DivisionCommunity PropertySeparate PropertyPersonal Injury SettlementAbuse of DiscretionSufficiency of EvidenceTracing FundsAppellate ReviewTexas Family Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patricia v. Delford Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Carrie Patricia brought an action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act against her former employer, Delford Industries, Inc., and her bargaining representatives, Local 546 and the International Union. Patricia alleged wrongful termination by Delford and a breach of the duty of fair representation by the unions for their handling of her grievance. The court considered motions for summary judgment from all parties and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint. The motions for summary judgment by Local 546, Delford, and Patricia were denied. The International Union's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint was also granted.

Labor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Civil ProcedureRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelUnemployment Benefits Claim
References
15
Case No. 13-07-00301-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2010

Centocor, Inc. v. Patricia Hamilton, Thomas Hamilton, and Dr. Michael Bullen

Patricia and Thomas Hamilton sued Centocor, Inc. after Patricia developed a drug-induced lupus-like syndrome allegedly caused by her use of Remicade, a drug manufactured by Centocor. The Hamiltons alleged fraud and other causes of action, claiming Centocor's direct-to-consumer advertising for Remicade over-emphasized benefits while omitting warnings about severe side-effects like lupus-like syndrome. The jury found in favor of the Hamiltons, awarding them actual and punitive damages. On appeal, Centocor argued the "learned intermediary" doctrine precluded the Hamiltons' claims and challenged the sufficiency of causation evidence and the adequacy of its warnings. The Court of Appeals recognized an exception to the learned intermediary doctrine, holding that a drug manufacturer cannot rely on warnings to physicians when it directly advertises to patients in a misleading fashion. The court affirmed the findings of fraud and causation but reversed the award for future pain and mental anguish damages, as Patricia's symptoms ceased after discontinuing Remicade and no evidence of future suffering was presented. The court affirmed the punitive damages award as properly capped.

Pharmaceutical liabilityDrug-induced lupus-like syndromeRemicade side effectsDirect-to-consumer advertisingLearned intermediary doctrineProduct liabilityFraudulent misrepresentationCausation evidenceMedical marketingPunitive damages
References
44
Case No. 03-05-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2006

Patricia Bush v. Fayette County, Texas

This case involves a dispute between landowner Patricia Bush and Fayette County, Texas, concerning the public or private status of a 0.6-mile section of St. James Church Road. Patricia Bush appealed the district court's decision, which granted summary judgment in favor of Fayette County, declaring the road public. The County's argument for public status was based on theories of implied dedication or prescription. The appellate court, in its de novo review, focused on the implied dedication theory. It determined that the County presented sufficient evidence of long-standing public use, creating a presumption of implied dedication that Bush failed to refute. The court also found that the public relied on the road's public nature and would continue to be served by its dedication, and that implied acceptance of the dedication was established through customary public use. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment.

Land Use DisputePublic Road AccessImplied DedicationSummary Judgment RulingAppellate ReviewProperty RightsFayette CountyTexas Court of AppealsRoad MaintenanceEasement by Prescription
References
19
Case No. 03-16-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2016

Patricia Mosley// Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, Patricia Mosley

Patricia Mosley is appealing a trial court's decision that affirmed the Texas Health and Human Services Commission's (HHSC) order to place her on the Employee Misconduct Registry (EMR). This placement stems from an incident where AW, a disabled individual under Mosley's one-to-one supervision, swallowed batteries. Mosley argues that her actions did not constitute neglect, asserting that maintaining constant arm's-length supervision for nearly seven hours alone was impossible, AW's secretive self-harming behavior was unforeseeable given the absence of warning signs, and she lacked adequate training for AW's specific needs. The core legal arguments revolve around the definition of 'neglect' as a negligent act requiring foreseeability and the proper application of a negligence standard versus a strict liability standard.

Employee Misconduct RegistryNegligenceForeseeabilityDirect Care ServicesDisabled IndividualsHealth and Human ServicesAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence RuleSupervision Requirements
References
36
Case No. 09-06-121 CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

in Re Patricia Narvaiz

Patricia Narvaiz filed an original proceeding seeking to compel the judge of the 221st District Court, Montgomery County, Texas, to transfer her Suit Affecting the Parent-Child Relationship (SAPCR) to Bexar County, Texas. Narvaiz, the mother, moved with the child to Bexar County in February 2003, while Roy Brown, the father, resided in Montgomery County. Brown filed his SAPCR in Montgomery County in August 2005, asserting the child resided there, despite Narvaiz claiming actual possession and residency in Bexar County at the time of filing. The trial court denied Narvaiz's motion to transfer venue, interpreting the Family Code's venue provisions for SAPCRs where parents reside in different counties and share possession. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's decision, focusing on the interpretation of

Venue TransferParent-Child RelationshipFamily LawChild CustodyActual PossessionBexar CountyMontgomery CountyMandamusStatutory InterpretationTexas Family Code
References
9
Case No. 03-10-00019-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2011

Dr. Don Brantley, Belinda Castillo, Dr. Corinne Alvarez-Sanders and Patricia Logterman// Texas Youth Commission Cherrie Townsend in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director v. Texas Youth Commission Cherrie Townsend in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director// Dr. Don Brantley, Belinda Castillo, Dr. Corinne Alvarez-Sanders

This case concerns challenges by current and former employees of the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) against the constitutionality of Senate Bill 103, which converted TYC employment from 'for-cause' to 'at-will.' The plaintiffs, including Dr. Don Brantley, Belinda Castillo, Dr. Corinne Alvarez-Sanders, and Patricia Logterman, sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief based on alleged wrongful termination, due process violations, defamation, and unconstitutional takings. The district court partially granted and denied TYC's plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Castillo's claims for lack of ripeness and the defamation and takings claims for all plaintiffs due to sovereign immunity. It reversed in part, allowing Alvarez-Sanders and Logterman to replead their wrongful-termination/due-process claims for equitable relief against a proper state official, and similarly reversed in part Brantley's wrongful-termination/due-process claim.

Employment LawPublic EmployeesAt-Will EmploymentFor-Cause EmploymentDue ProcessConstitutional LawRetroactive LegislationEx Post Facto LawBill of AttainderSovereign Immunity
References
37
Case No. 07-23-00275-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2024

City of San Antonio v. Patricia Diaz

The City of San Antonio appealed the denial of its jurisdictional challenge against Patricia Diaz's employment discrimination lawsuit, which arose from her termination for allegedly misusing a subordinate's time. The Court of Appeals, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, found Diaz failed to present sufficient evidence for her sex, age, and retaliation discrimination claims. Specifically, she lacked proof of comparable seriousness for disparate discipline or clear opposition to an illegal practice. Moreover, the court affirmed the City's governmental immunity from intentional torts such as defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction, leading to the dismissal of all of Diaz's claims.

Employment DiscriminationGovernmental ImmunityInterlocutory AppealPlea to JurisdictionSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationDisparate DisciplineIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamation
References
30
Case No. M2010-01383-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2012

Patricia Carlene Mayfield v. Phillip Harold Mayfield

Patricia Carlene Mayfield (Wife) sought a divorce from Phillip Harold Mayfield (Husband). The trial court granted the divorce, designated Wife as the primary residential parent, divided marital property, and denied Husband's alimony request. Husband appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings. The court specifically reversed the trial court's refusal to divide Wife's post-separation income and the denial of alimony, finding Husband suffered economic detriment for the marriage's benefit and was entitled to transitional alimony.

DivorceMarital PropertyChild CustodyAlimonySpousal SupportDiscretionary CostsDomestic AbuseParental ResponsibilitiesEconomic DisadvantageEquitable Distribution
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 258 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