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

Mission Insurance Co. v. Hill

This case concerns an appeal by Mission Insurance Co. from a post-answer default judgment granted in favor of Edwin Hill in a workers' compensation suit. Mission had failed to appear for both a pretrial hearing and the subsequent trial, leading to the default. The trial court denied Mission's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Mission did not conclusively establish that its attorney's failure to appear was not due to conscious indifference. Furthermore, the appellate court held that the trial court could appropriately consider violations of local court procedural rules when ruling on a motion for a new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionConscious IndifferenceAttorney Non-AppearanceProcedural RulesLocal Court RulesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewTrial Court Discretion
References
3
Case No. No. 10-12-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 2013

Brian Dunn, Janel Dunn and Leisel Moseley v. Happy Hill Farm Academy/Home and Happy Hill Farm Children's Home Endowment Fund, Happy Hill Farm Children Home, Inc., A/K/A Dallas Cowboys Courage House

Appellants Leisel Moseley, Brian Dunn, and Janel Dunn appealed a summary judgment favoring Happy Hill Farm Academy/Home and related entities. They claimed wrongful termination, alleging Happy Hill Farm operates as a treatment or mental-health facility under the Texas Health and Safety Code, and contested the applicability of statutory exemptions. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Happy Hill Farm is neither a treatment nor a mental-health facility, but a basic child care facility with a school. Furthermore, the court found Happy Hill Farm exempt from former Chapter 242 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, as it operates under the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, a recognized state agency.

Summary judgmentWrongful terminationTexas Health and Safety CodeMental health facilityTreatment facilityBoarding schoolState agency exemptionEmployment at willRetaliatory dischargeMedical misconduct
References
17
Case No. 05-20-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2022

Albert G. Hill, III v. Margaret Keliher, in Her Capacity as Personal Representative and Successor Independent of the Estate of Albert G. Hill, Jr., and Carol E. Irwin, in Her Capacity

This appeal concerns Albert G. Hill, III's (Hill III) claims for malicious prosecution, conspiracy, and aiding and abetting, which were dismissed by the probate court under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Hill III alleged his criminal indictment for false statements on a home equity loan was influenced by his father, Albert G. Hill, Jr., and others, acting with malice and without probable cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the TCPA applied to Hill III's claims. The court found Hill III failed to establish a prima facie case, specifically lacking clear and specific evidence that false information knowingly supplied by appellees was the "but for" cause of his prosecution or that appellees lacked probable cause. The dismissal of criminal charges on procedural grounds was not deemed evidence of unjustifiable prosecution or lack of probable cause.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAMalicious ProsecutionCivil ConspiracyAiding and AbettingAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulingPrima Facie CaseProbable CauseFree Speech
References
15
Case No. ADJ10344350; ADJ10344309
Regular
Sep 29, 2025

JUAN SALAZAR vs. MAYWOOD PLAZA MARKET, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) concerning lien claimants Industrial Healthcare PMG, Complete Interpreting, and Peralta Hills-Mission Valley Imaging. The WCJ had dismissed their liens, finding their declarations under Labor Code section 4903.8(d) invalid. The WCAB, however, found that the declarant, Ilona Kulikova, possessed sufficient personal knowledge and access to information to competently testify regarding the services provided and billing accuracy. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's Findings and Orders and substituted new findings declaring the lien claimants' original section 4903.8(d) declarations valid, thus remanding the matter for further proceedings.

Labor Code Section 4903.8(d)Lien claimantsDeclarationsCompetent to testifyPrima facie evidenceBurden of proofIndustrial Healthcare PMGComplete InterpretingPeralta Hills-Mission Valley ImagingIlona Kulikova
References
11
Case No. 154970/19 | Appeal No. 5599 | Case No. 2024-06451
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Russell v. Lenox Hill Hosp.

Plaintiff James Russell, an employee of a delivery service, sustained injuries while unloading a blood irradiator machine at Lenox Hill Hospital, falling off a truck after the machine rolled towards him. The Supreme Court had denied Lenox Hill Hospital's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200 claims and common-law negligence, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, and denied Rad Source Technologies' motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed these decisions, dismissing both the complaint against Lenox Hill Hospital and the third-party complaint. The court ruled that plaintiff was not a covered worker under Labor Law § 240(1) as the electrical work was unrelated to his activity and completed before delivery. Furthermore, Lenox Hill Hospital did not supervise or control plaintiff's work, negating Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence liability. The third-party complaint was also dismissed, as Rad Source cannot be held liable for the negligence of an independent contractor, and delivery work is not considered inherently dangerous.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentIndependent ContractorDelivery ServicesPremises LiabilityLoading Dock InjuryUnloading Equipment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Calhoun v. Hill

Edward P. Calhoun and wife sued Homer A. (Bud) Hill for the wrongful death of their son, Robert Calhoun, who died after being crushed by a hydraulic gate at Hill's feed lot. The incident occurred when Robert and another employee, Wesley Johnson, were racing through a dipping vat, with foreman Ted Hankins acting as a starter, during work hours but while waiting for lumber. The jury initially found in favor of the Calhouns, determining that Johnson and Hankins were in the course of their employment and negligent. However, the trial court granted Hill's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the employees' actions (the race) were personal and not in furtherance of Hill's business, thus suspending the master-servant relationship and relieving Hill of liability. The court also ruled that the foreman's awareness did not impose a duty on the employer to forbid such personal activities.

NegligenceWrongful DeathScope of EmploymentMaster-Servant RelationshipJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoVice-PrincipalPersonal ActivityEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewProximate Cause
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1980

Hill v. Texaco, Inc.

Richard Hill, an employee of Evans Engineering, Inc., brought a suit under the Longshoreman’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act against Texaco, Inc. for personal injuries. Hill was injured while performing metal thickness tests on Texaco's vessel, the Texaco Illinois, falling in a rusty, slippery tank. Both his employer and Texaco were aware of the dangerous conditions and Hill's failure to use safety equipment. The court found Texaco negligent, holding them liable for their own 20% negligence and the employer's 60% negligence. Hill was found 20% contributorily negligent. Ultimately, Hill was awarded $129,929.72 in damages, with adjustments for indemnification to Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company.

Longshoreman's ActHarbor WorkerPersonal InjuryNegligenceShipowner LiabilityContributory NegligenceIndependent ContractorVessel SafetyMaritime LawDamages Award
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wright v. Gifford-Hill & Co.

Reva Wright, the widow of Charles Wright, sued Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc. for exemplary damages under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act, alleging gross negligence led to her husband's death. A jury found Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc. 65% grossly negligent and awarded $450,000 in exemplary damages. The trial court initially entered a take-nothing judgment, a decision that was partially based on a legal precedent later overturned by the Texas Supreme Court. On remand, the appellate court affirmed the take-nothing judgment, not because of insufficient evidence for gross negligence or proximate cause, but on the grounds that Wright's claim against Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc. was barred by the statute of limitations. The court found that Wright failed to conclusively prove that Gifford-Hill American, Inc., the initially sued entity, was the "alter ego" of Gifford-Hill & Co., Inc. to toll the limitation period.

Exemplary damagesGross negligenceWorker's Compensation ActStatute of limitationsComparative negligenceCorporate alter egoParent-subsidiary liabilityWorkplace safetyProximate causeTexas law
References
14
Case No. 13-04-00550-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2005

in Re: Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc.

Linda Garcia, a truck driver for Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc., was injured in a vehicular accident and subsequently terminated. Mission deemed the accident 'major preventable' and terminated Garcia under company policy. Garcia sued Mission, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Mission moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement within its employee health and safety plan, which the trial court denied. Mission then filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeals reviewed the petition, concluded the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration, and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to withdraw its order.

Arbitration AgreementWrit of MandamusWrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimFederal Arbitration ActEmployment LawInterstate CommerceTruck DriverMotion to Compel ArbitrationAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

United States v. Peralta

This case concerns defendant Abner Peralta's motions to suppress evidence and dismiss his indictment in a federal drug trafficking case. Peralta was investigated for cocaine distribution, and a search warrant, based on Agent Phelan's affidavit, led to the discovery of drug-related evidence. Peralta contended that Agent Phelan's affidavit contained material inaccuracies and omissions, arguing for a Franks hearing. He also sought dismissal of the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, citing prior state charges for the same conduct. The court denied both motions, finding that Peralta failed to meet the 'substantial preliminary showing' required for a Franks hearing and that the dual sovereignty doctrine, which treats state and federal governments as separate sovereigns, precluded his double jeopardy claim.

Drug TraffickingCocaine DistributionSearch WarrantProbable CauseSuppression MotionFranks v. DelawareFourth AmendmentDouble JeopardyDual SovereigntyFederal Criminal Procedure
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 979 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