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. 07-09-0277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2011

Joseph E. Hancock v. Easwaran P. Variyam

Joseph E. Hancock appealed a defamation judgment in favor of Easwaran P. Variyam. The case stemmed from a letter Hancock wrote to Variyam's superiors and a professional accreditation body, alleging Variyam had a "reputation for lack of veracity" and "deals in half truths." The trial court found these statements to be libel per se, and a jury awarded Variyam $90,000 in actual damages and $85,000 in exemplary damages. Hancock challenged the libel per se finding, the sufficiency of damages evidence, and the admission of an anonymous letter at trial. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the libel per se finding and the damage awards, and deeming any error regarding the anonymous letter harmless.

DefamationLibel per seMental Anguish DamagesReputation DamagesExemplary DamagesMedical ProfessionalsProfessional EthicsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTexas Law
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Lima v. Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc.

Plaintiff Neil V. D’Lima, D.D.S., commenced an employment discrimination action against Cuba Memorial Hospital, Inc. and its CEO, Andrew H. Boser, III, alleging discrimination based on race, color, national origin (Indian), violations of the NYHRL, ADA, slander per se, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants moved to dismiss several claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the ADA and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims. Additionally, the slander per se claim was partially granted regarding statements made by Boser to Kerling due to qualified privilege. However, the motion was denied for the slander per se claim concerning statements made by Boser to Glover and claims where Glover acted under the employer's express authority, as well as the NYHRL claim against Boser. The court also exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationColor DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationNYHRLADATitle VIISlander Per SeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressMotion to Dismiss
References
31
Case No. 10-05-00017-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2005

A.J. Morris, M.D. v. Katherine L. Blanchette, M.D.

Dr. A.J. Morris sued Dr. Katherine Blanchette for libel per se following a peer review report by Blanchette that criticized Morris's patient treatment. The trial court granted Blanchette's summary judgment motion. Morris appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the statements were protected opinions, libelous per se, or privileged. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Blanchette's report constituted a constitutionally protected expression of opinion and was not defamatory, especially within the context of the worker's compensation independent review system.

Libel per sePeer ReviewMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentConstitutional ProtectionOpinion vs. FactWorkers' Compensation SystemDefamationHealth & Safety CodeAppellate Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hancock v. Variyam

The case involves an appeal by Joseph E. Hancock against a defamation judgment favoring Easwaran P. Variyam. Both physicians at Texas Tech University Medical Center, Hancock defamed Variyam in a letter to superiors and an accreditation body. The trial court deemed the statements libel per se, finding malice and rejecting truth as a defense. Variyam was awarded $90,000 in actual damages and $85,000 in exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed, upholding the libel per se finding, confirming the sufficiency of damages evidence for mental anguish and reputation loss, and ruling that any error in admitting an anonymous letter was harmless.

DefamationLibel per sePhysician misconductReputation damageMental anguishExemplary damagesTexas lawAppellate reviewJury trialMedical professionals
References
77
Case No. Docket No. 8
Regular Panel Decision

Desano v. Blossom South, LLC

This case involves a lawsuit alleging violations of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disability Act (ADA), and a state law claim for libel per se. The Plaintiff, an employee of the Defendant, claimed that confidential medical information was improperly disclosed in violation of ADA confidentiality provisions. The Defendant filed a motion to dismiss all federal claims and the state law claim. The Court dismissed the FMLA claims (First, Second, and Fourth causes of action) but allowed the ADA claim and the state law libel per se claim (Third and Fifth causes of action) to proceed, finding a plausible claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4).

FMLA violationsADA violationsLibel per seMotion to dismissConfidentiality of medical informationEmployer inquiryJob-related functionsSupplemental jurisdictionPlausibility standardRule 12(b)(6)
References
7
Case No. 01-22-00434-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas v. Augustine Cruz Melendez, A. Morfin Trucking LLC, and Trans-Global Solutions, Inc.

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County, Texas (Metro) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Trans-Global Solutions, Inc. (TGS). Metro had sued TGS for negligence, negligence per se, and gross negligence following an accident where a dump truck, driven by an employee of a TGS subcontractor, collided with a Metro train. Metro alleged that TGS failed to uphold its duties regarding safety, traffic control, and monitoring subcontractor compliance with traffic laws. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that TGS did not have a legal duty to control the subcontractor's driver's actions off the project site, and Metro failed to provide sufficient evidence for its negligence per se claim.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceNegligence Per SeGross NegligenceContractual DutyRight of ControlIndependent ContractorProximate CauseTraffic AccidentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. 01-15-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2016

Kendrick Donahoe v. Danny Jones

Kendrick Donahoe appealed a take-nothing judgment against him in a negligence suit against Danny Jones. Donahoe contended the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on negligence per se and by denying his motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV). The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found Donahoe failed to preserve some issues for review and, crucially, failed to file a reporter's record, which led the court to presume the omitted evidence supported the trial court's judgment. The court also clarified that Texas Transportation Code § 545.351 regarding speed incorporates an ordinary negligence standard, precluding a negligence per se instruction.

NegligenceDirected VerdictJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Jury InstructionsAppellate ProcedureSufficiency of EvidenceReporter's RecordTraffic LawsNegligence Per SeAbuse of Discretion
References
23
Case No. 11-20-00208-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2022

Samuel Adams Flores v. Oil-Tech Construction, LLC

Samuel Adams Flores sued his former employer, Oil-Tech Construction, LLC, for personal injuries sustained while at work, asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, and malice. Flores suffered a knee injury when stepping down from the flatbed of his work pickup. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Oil-Tech. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on the claims of duty to warn, duty to train, negligence per se, and gross negligence. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the negligence claim concerning Oil-Tech's alleged failure to provide a necessary instrumentality, finding a factual dispute on whether a step was essential for safe job performance.

Personal InjuryEmployer NegligenceSummary JudgmentDuty to WarnDuty to TrainNecessary InstrumentalityNegligence Per SeGross NegligenceWorker SafetyTexas Law
References
42
Case No. 06-10-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2011

Gloria Lopez-Juarez, Individually and as of the Estate of Alejandro Juarez, and as Next Friend of Gloria Alejandra Juarez v. Huey Kelly, D/B/A Kelly Tours

Alejandro Juarez died following a multi-vehicle accident in Gregg County, Texas, involving a rear-end collision and a subsequent impact with a tour bus. His wife, Gloria Lopez-Juarez, sued Huey Kelly, d/b/a Kelly Tours, for negligence under the Texas Wrongful Death and Survival Statutes. Lopez-Juarez appealed the trial court's admission of Trooper Colby Hobbs' expert testimony and the denial of a negligence per se instruction. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the admission of Hobbs' testimony, though erroneous due to his lack of qualifications, was harmless as it was cumulative. It also upheld the denial of the negligence per se instruction, concluding there was insufficient evidence of proximate cause between the statutory violation and the accident.

NegligenceAccident ReconstructionExpert WitnessAppellate ReviewHarmless ErrorProximate CauseMedical CertificateCommercial Motor VehicleWrongful DeathSurvival Statute
References
102
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Oil Co. v. Simpson

The case concerns a wrongful death action initiated by Samuel Virgil Simpson's family against Continental Oil Company following Simpson's death in an explosion at Continental's Mobeetie facility. A jury initially found Simpson solely negligent, but the trial court overrode these findings, concluding Continental was negligent per se due to non-compliance with a Railroad Commission tariff rule, and awarded damages to the plaintiffs. On appeal, the higher court reversed this judgment. It ruled that the tariff rule in question was primarily for determining transportation rates, not for establishing a standard of civil liability, thereby negating the negligence per se claim. Consequently, the appellate court rendered a take-nothing judgment against the plaintiffs, emphasizing that the issue of Continental's negligence was not properly established.

Wrongful DeathNegligence Per SeAdministrative RegulationsTariff RulesProximate CauseJury FindingsAppellate ReviewCivil LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,687 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