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. 03-21-00182-CV; 03-21-00233-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2022

in Re Pedro Martinez and Lydia Gonzalez, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Pedro Jovany Bruno Martinez

This case consolidates two original proceedings originating from Travis County district courts, both stemming from a workplace injury leading to the death of 20-year-old Pedro Jovany “Bruno” Martinez. Hellas Construction, Inc., sought mandamus relief to reinstate the abatement of a tort suit filed against it by the Martinez Family, disputing Bruno's employment status at the time of injury. Concurrently, the Martinez Family sought mandamus relief to dismiss its own suit for judicial review of a Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers Compensation (DWC) order that found Bruno was a Hellas employee, arguing DWC lacked jurisdiction as no formal claim for benefits was filed. The Court of Appeals deferred to the DWC's interpretation of its exclusive jurisdiction over eligibility disputes, irrespective of an active claim. Consequently, the court granted Hellas's request to reinstate the abatement of the tort suit pending a final decision in the judicial review, and denied the Martinez Family's request for mandamus relief.

Workers' CompensationMandamus ReliefJurisdiction DisputeEmployment StatusWrongful DeathAbatement of ProceedingsJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawStatute of LimitationsTexas Court of Appeals
References
20
Case No. 14-12-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2013

Zuleima Olivares. Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., and Pedro Olivares, Individually v. Brown & Gay Engineering and Mike Stone Enterprises, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by Zuleima Olivares and Pedro Olivares (Appellants) against the granting of pleas to the jurisdiction for Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. and Mike Stone Enterprises, Inc. (Appellees). The Appellants had sued the Appellees for negligence and premises defects following a fatal accident on the Westpark Tollway. Appellees claimed governmental immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act, arguing they functioned as governmental employees. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals examined whether the Appellees met the statutory definition of governmental employees or were independent contractors. The court ultimately concluded that both Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. and Mike Stone Enterprises, Inc. were independent contractors, thus not entitled to governmental immunity. Therefore, the trial court's decision was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Governmental immunityTexas Tort Claims ActIndependent contractorGovernmental employeePlea to the jurisdictionNegligencePremises defectRight to controlTort liabilityAppellate review
References
34
Case No. 11-19-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Pedro De La Rosa and Angelina De La Rosa v. Basic Energy Services, L.P., by and Through Its General Partner, Basic Energy Services GP, LLC

Pedro and Angelina De La Rosa appealed a trial court's order granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed by Basic Energy Services, L.P. and Basic Energy Services GP, LLC. The De La Rosas alleged intentional injuries to Pedro during a work-related truck accident and subsequent medical interference, plus Angelina's loss of consortium. The Eleventh Court of Appeals determined that the Appellants' claims fell under the intentional-injury exception to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, thereby establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also clarified that election of remedies is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Intentional InjuryWorkers Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionExclusive RemedyElection of RemediesTruck AccidentEmployer LiabilityMedical InterferenceLoss of Consortium
References
33
Case No. 13-0605
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2015

Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc. v. Zuleima Olivares, Individually and as the Representative of the Estate of Pedro Olivares, Jr., & Pedro Olivares

This case addresses whether a private engineering firm, Brown & Gay Engineering, Inc., is entitled to sovereign immunity when sued for negligence in carrying out a contract with a governmental unit, the Fort Bend County Toll Road Authority. The firm designed roadway signs and traffic layouts for the Westpark Tollway, where a fatal collision occurred due to an intoxicated driver. The Olivares family sued Brown & Gay, alleging negligence in the design of traffic control devices. The Supreme Court of Texas held that extending sovereign immunity to the engineering firm does not align with the doctrine's purposes, which primarily protect the public treasury from unforeseen expenditures rather than insulate private entities from liability for their independent actions. The Court distinguished this situation from cases where contractors merely follow government specifications, noting that Brown & Gay exercised independent discretion in its design work and could manage its risks through insurance. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, denying Brown & Gay's plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernment ContractorsNegligence ClaimsIndependent DiscretionPublic Funds ProtectionDerivative ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActPlea to JurisdictionCivil LiabilityGovernmental Functions
References
33
Case No. 03-96-00151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1997

Pedro Antonio Diaz v. Commission for Lawyer Discipline

Pedro Antonio Diaz appealed a trial court judgment that suspended his authority to practice law for eighteen months. The suspension followed a jury's finding that Diaz violated three disciplinary rules: making a false statement of material fact to a tribunal, commingling lawyer and client funds, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Diaz challenged the submission of additional violations and the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the district court proceedings were original and independent, allowing for the assertion of additional claims. The court also found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the false statements made in an affidavit and rejected arguments concerning materiality and Diaz's role as a party.

lawyer disciplineprofessional misconductfalse statementscommingling fundsattorney suspensionappellate reviewTexas lawlegal ethicssummary judgmentequitable lien
References
3
Case No. 14-09-00244-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2010

Texas Department of Transportation v. Olivares

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a wrongful death lawsuit. Appellees Zuleima and Pedro Olivares brought claims after Pedro Olivares, Jr. was killed by an intoxicated wrong-way driver on the Westpark Tollway. The claims against TxDOT included premise defects related to traffic control devices and roadway design, as well as a joint-enterprise theory of liability. The Court of Appeals partially affirmed the trial court's denial for some joint-enterprise claims, reversed and rendered dismissal for other joint-enterprise claims, and reversed and remanded several premise defect claims to allow appellees an opportunity to amend their pleadings to establish jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActPlea to the JurisdictionPremise DefectNegligent ImplementationTraffic Control DevicesRoadway DesignJoint EnterpriseWrongful Death
References
67
Case No. 05-14-01448-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2015

Delores Rubio, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Willie Pedro Rubio, Jr. v. Excell Electrical Contractors, Inc.

This order addresses an appeal initially dismissed due to the appellant's failure to pay for the clerk's record. Appellant Delores Rubio, representing the estate of Willie Pedro Rubio, Jr., filed a motion for reinstatement and abatement. The appellant sought to abate the appeal to allow for the resolution of a dispute concerning workers' compensation death benefits through an administrative process, involving the appellee's insurer, Service Lloyd Insurance Co. The trial court had previously granted summary judgment to Excell Electrical Contractors, Inc., concluding that the appellant, as the deceased's parent, could not recover exemplary damages for wrongful death, as workers' compensation benefits constituted her sole remedy. The Court of Appeals granted the motion, vacated its prior dismissal, and reinstated the appeal. Additionally, the court ordered the appellant to provide verification regarding the reporter's record and a status report on the administrative contested case hearing.

appellate proceduremotion for reinstatementabatementworkers' compensation benefitsexemplary damageswrongful deathclerk's recordreporter's recordsummary judgmentadministrative process
References
2
Case No. 07-01-0111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2001

Shanna Perez, Individually and as Next Friend of Samantha Perez v. Williams & Peters Construction Company

Shanna Perez, individually and as next friend of Samantha Perez, appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in her gross negligence suit against Williams & Peters Construction Co., Inc. The suit stemmed from the death of Pedro Perez during his employment, who was asphyxiated by sand while cleaning a bin. Despite the employer being a worker's compensation subscriber, the appellant sought damages for gross negligence. The appellate court reviewed whether the appellant presented more than a scintilla of evidence for gross negligence, applying the standard of extreme risk and subjective awareness of the risk with conscious indifference. The court ultimately found no evidence that the employer or its employees subjectively knew of the particular risk to Pedro on the day of the incident, despite potential OSHA violations and inadequate procedures, and thus affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Gross NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealWorkplace FatalityConfined Space AccidentEmployer LiabilityWorker's Compensation LawTexas Court of AppealsAsphyxiation DeathOSHA ViolationsConscious Indifference
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garza v. Serrato

Justice Tijerina dissents from the majority's decision, arguing to affirm the trial court's judgment. The dissent addresses several appellant complaints regarding the denial of a motion to quash a deposition and a protective order concerning Dr. Luis Gonzalez Rios's video testimony. Appellants contended Dr. Rios's testimony was incompetent hearsay due to alleged lack of cross-examination opportunity and absence of myelograms. Justice Tijerina counters that appellants waived their objection rights by not attending the deposition and that the myelograms were available. The dissent also upholds the trial court's denial of continuance motions, citing appellants' lack of due diligence. Finally, Justice Tijerina defends the trial court's awards of damages to plaintiffs Mrs. Serrato and Ms. Gutierrez for various injuries, affirming their sufficiency and stating that elements like mental anguish and physical impairment are distinct from pain and suffering or loss of earning capacity. The dissent concludes that alleged ex parte communications and cumulative errors do not warrant reversal of the trial court's judgment.

DepositionHearsayMedical TestimonyMyelogramHerniated DiscsDamagesPain and SufferingMental AnguishLoss of EarningsPhysical Impairment
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedro Gonzalez & Maria Gomez v. Vatr Construction LLC & All American Roofing & Construction

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a general contractor, VATR Construction, LLC (VC), and a subcontractor, All American Roofing & Construction, in a lawsuit brought by the Estate of Roger Alexis Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a roofer, suffered fatal injuries after falling from a roof due to not using safety equipment. The Estate alleged negligence, gross negligence, and negligence per se against VC and All American. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that neither VC nor All American owed a contractual duty or exercised actual control over Gonzalez's work or safety, and that OSHA regulations do not establish negligence per se in this context. Furthermore, the court rejected the Estate's argument that Gonzalez was a third-party beneficiary of upstream contracts, concluding that summary judgment was properly granted on all claims.

Construction AccidentFatal InjuryRooferFall ProtectionSafety EquipmentNegligenceGross NegligenceNegligence Per SeSummary JudgmentGeneral Contractor Liability
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 112 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