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. 03-09-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2010

Marissa Fernandez and Peter Fernandez v. Sharon Peters

Appellants Marissa Fernandez and Peter Fernandez appealed a post-answer default summary judgment entered against them in favor of appellee Sharon Peters in the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District. The core issues involved alleged errors in upholding the summary judgment and denying their motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding no error in the summary judgment because Peters's evidence successfully negated an essential element of the Fernandezes' conversion claim, specifically the demand for property return. Furthermore, the court concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial, determining that the Fernandezes' failure to respond was attributable to conscious indifference rather than an accident or mistake. This decision highlighted the importance of proper notice and timely response in legal proceedings, even for pro se litigants.

Summary Judgment AppealPost-Answer Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialConversion ClaimBona Fide PurchaserForeclosure SalePersonal Property AbandonmentNotice RequirementsDue ProcessConscious Indifference
References
34
Case No. CV-23-0309
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Brenda Fernandez

Claimant Brenda Fernandez appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to her late husband, John Fernandez, a track inspector who contracted COVID-19. John died in November 2020, purportedly due to cardiac arrest and pulmonary embolism, after testing positive for COVID-19 in March 2020. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found a work-related injury, the Board later modified and disallowed the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that decedent contracted COVID-19 in the course of his employment. The Court emphasized the lack of substantial evidence regarding specific exposure or elevated risk in the workplace.

COVID-19Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsCausal RelationEmployment ExposureSubstantial EvidenceTrack InspectorPulmonary EmbolismCardiac ArrestAppellate ReviewBurden of Proof
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel

Plaintiff Augustine Fernandez filed a lawsuit in New York State Court following an automobile collision, seeking one million dollars in damages. He named Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel, John Doe, JBN Transport, and Dan Schantz Farm & Greenhouses as defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. Fernandez moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the removal was untimely and the amount in controversy was insufficient. The court, applying the "last-served defendant rule," determined the removal was timely as the last defendant received the summons on April 23, 2004, and the removal petition was filed within 30 days. The court also accepted Fernandez's stated damages of $1 million for diversity jurisdiction purposes, rejecting his attempt to disclaim it. Consequently, Fernandez’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied.

Diversity JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMotion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalLast-Served Defendant RuleAmount in ControversyService of ProcessStatutory AgentCivil ProcedureSouthern District of New York
References
23
Case No. 14-09-01092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2011

Patrick B. Alexander v. Josephine Alexander

Patrick B. Alexander appealed a post-answer default judgment of divorce, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion for new trial and the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting property division, spousal maintenance, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion for new trial, concluding Patrick failed to prove his absence was unintentional or not due to conscious indifference under the Craddock test. However, the court found Josephine Alexander presented insufficient evidence for the property division, spousal maintenance, and attorney's fees. Consequently, these specific portions of the divorce decree were reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The remainder of the trial court's judgment was affirmed, and Josephine's request for sanctions against Patrick's attorney was denied.

DivorceDefault JudgmentNew TrialProperty DivisionSpousal MaintenanceAttorney's FeesLegal SufficiencyCraddock TestAbuse of DiscretionRule 11 Agreement
References
15
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02022
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Fernandez v. City of New York

Jose Fernandez, who was allegedly injured at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, sued the City of New York for personal injuries, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The City moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to serve a timely notice of claim, as required by General Municipal Law §§ 50-e and 50-i. Fernandez opposed, arguing that the notice of claim requirements were preempted by the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The Supreme Court granted the City's motion to dismiss and denied Fernandez's cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the LHWCA does not alter the state law requirement for a timely notice of claim when pursuing state law causes of action against a non-maritime entity, and the proposed amendment alleging a federal maritime tort was meritless as the accident location was not subject to maritime jurisdiction.

Personal InjuryLabor LawNotice of ClaimLHWCAPreemptionMaritime TortAppellate ProcedureDismissalLeave to AmendBrooklyn Navy Yard
References
10
Case No. 07-24-00362-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2026

Yeimi Fernandez, as Mother and Guardian of J.J.M., a Minor Child v. Heartland Co-Op, Corp.

The case involves an appeal by Yeimi Fernandez, mother and guardian of J.J.M., a minor child, against Heartland Co-op, Corp. Fernandez sued Heartland for gross negligence and wrongful death following the on-the-job death of Michael Molden in a grain bin accident. The trial court granted Heartland's no-evidence summary judgment motion and denied Fernandez's subsequent motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in granting summary judgment due to the lack of evidence supporting gross negligence on Heartland's part, specifically noting Molden's failure to adhere to safety policies. The denial of the motion for new trial was also upheld because Fernandez did not challenge the exclusion of the newly discovered evidence.

Summary JudgmentWrongful DeathGross NegligenceGrain Bin AccidentEmployer LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActNo-Evidence MotionAppellate ReviewSafety PoliciesEmployee Misconduct
References
13
Case No. E2013-02444-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2014

Phillip Dean Patrick v. Nelson Global Products, Inc.

Phillip Dean Patrick, a former employee of Nelson Global Products, Inc., filed a retaliatory discharge action alleging he was unlawfully terminated after a co-worker filed a workers' compensation claim. Patrick claimed that his co-worker's filing was a substantial factor in his discharge. The trial court granted the employer's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the complaint failed to allege a well-defined public policy violation or that Patrick's exercise of a protected right was a substantial factor in his termination, specifically noting that the retaliatory discharge action does not extend to bystanders or witnesses of a co-worker's injury.

Retaliatory DischargeAt-will EmploymentWorkers' Compensation ClaimMotion to DismissPublic Policy ExceptionAppellate ReviewCo-worker InjuryBystander TerminationLegal SufficiencyTennessee Court of Appeals
References
11
Case No. 03-09-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2010

Roberto Arredondo v. State

Appellants Marissa and Peter Fernandez appealed a post-answer default summary judgment entered against them in favor of appellee Sharon Peters. The case stemmed from the foreclosure sale of real property belonging to Marissa Fernandez, which Sharon Peters purchased, and Peters' subsequent disposal of Peter Fernandez's personal property located on the premises. The Fernandezes had sued Peters for conversion and Mayo-Halbert and Rex Baker for wrongful foreclosure. The trial court granted summary judgment after the Fernandezes, whose attorney had withdrawn, failed to respond or appear. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the summary judgment evidence was competent and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial, attributing the Fernandezes' failure to respond to conscious indifference rather than mistake.

Real Estate LawForeclosureConversion of PropertySummary JudgmentMotion for New TrialDue ProcessNoticeDefault JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
34
Case No. 06-08-00007-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2008

Brittany Fernandez v. State

Brittney Fernandez appealed her conviction for abandoning a child, arguing that the trial court violated her due process rights by convicting her of a felony under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.041(b) instead of a misdemeanor under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.10, due to the doctrine of in pari materia. The evidence showed Fernandez left an infant in her locked car for over an hour while shoplifting. The Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana, analyzed whether Sections 22.041 and 22.10 are in pari materia. The court concluded that the statutes are not in pari materia because they do not apply to the same persons, and Section 22.10 does not meet every element of Section 22.041, particularly the requirement of exposure to an unreasonable risk of harm. Therefore, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Criminal LawChild AbandonmentStatutory InterpretationIn Pari MateriaFelonyMisdemeanorDue ProcessTexas Penal CodeAppellate ReviewCriminal Appeal
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06114
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2022

Fernandez v. Taping Expert, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sandy Joel Fana Fernandez, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which denied his motion to set aside a jury verdict. Fernandez was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while painting, claiming a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation against defendants Blima Ruchel Girls School and Keren Yad Veizer, Inc. The jury found the fall did not substantially cause his injuries, a finding supported by defense experts attributing injuries to degenerative causes. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor LawJury VerdictAppellate ReviewCausationDegenerative InjuriesEvidence WeightMotion DenialProximate Cause
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 287 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