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

Walls Regional Hospital v. Bomar

Nurses Kym Bomar, Laura Cosby, and Cynthia Patterson sued their employer, Walls Regional Hospital, alleging negligence for allowing Dr. George Boyett to sexually harass them and for negligent hiring/credentialing. The Hospital moved for summary judgment, arguing the Workers’ Compensation Act barred the action. The district court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, finding fact issues regarding the 'personal animosity' exception. The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed with the court of appeals, holding that the nurses' injuries occurred in the course of their employment and did not fall under the 'personal animosity' exception, as the harassment was workplace-specific and not rooted in personal animosity transported from outside work. Consequently, the Workers’ Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy, barring the negligence claim. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered judgment for the Hospital.

Workers' CompensationSexual HarassmentEmployer NegligenceSafe WorkplacePersonal Animosity ExceptionSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyTexas Supreme CourtAppellate ReviewLabor Code
References
8
Case No. 14-05-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2006

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company v. Brenda Green, Beneficiary of Robert Green

This worker's compensation case involved an appeal by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company against a judgment awarding death benefits to Brenda Green, the widow of Robert Green. Green was fatally shot at his workplace, Cargo Airport Services, in what appeared to be a robbery. Lumbermens contended that Green's death was not compensable and fell under the 'personal animosity exception' of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court, referencing the Nasser precedent, determined there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Green's death occurred within the course and scope of his employment. The court concluded that the personal animosity exception did not apply, as the incident arose in the workplace and was incidental to an inferred duty of employment. Consequently, the trial court's judgment affirming the death benefits award was affirmed.

Worker's CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentPersonal Animosity ExceptionLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyThird-Party AssaultWorkplace InjuryTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nasser v. Security Insurance Co.

This workers' compensation case involves plaintiff Izzat Nasser, an assistant manager, who was stabbed by a customer's ex-boyfriend, Victor Daryoush, apparently due to jealousy after Nasser conversed with the customer as part of his job duties. A jury initially awarded Nasser benefits for total and permanent incapacity, but the court of appeals reversed, citing the 'personal animosity' exception to workers' compensation coverage. The Supreme Court of Texas disagreed, finding sufficient evidence that the injury occurred in the course of employment, as Nasser's interaction with the customer was part of his job. The Court emphasized that the 'personal animosity' exception does not apply when the assailant is incapable of rational intent, a factor relevant given Daryoush's history. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentPersonal Animosity ExceptionWorkplace AssaultEmployee DutiesCustomer ServiceRational IntentMental HealthTexas Supreme CourtReversal and Remand
References
8
Case No. M2009-02442-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Estate of David Holt Ralston, by John A. Ralston, Personal Representative v. Fred R. Hobbs

The personal representative of David Holt Ralston's estate filed an action to rescind twelve deeds executed by Fred R. Hobbs, the decedent's attorney-in-fact, without the decedent's knowledge and for no consideration. The properties were conveyed to Hobbs, his mother, and his daughter. The personal representative alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court rescinded the conveyances for properties still owned by Hobbs and awarded monetary damages for properties transferred to innocent third parties. On appeal, Hobbs challenged the personal representative's standing, statute of limitations, the finding of fiduciary duty breach, and damage calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on all grounds, finding the personal representative had standing, the action was timely filed, and Hobbs breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized gifts not in line with the principal's gifting history.

Fiduciary DutyPower of AttorneyReal Property ConversionStatute of LimitationsDeed RescissionMonetary DamagesAppellate ReviewEstate LawUndue InfluenceAttorney-in-Fact Breach
References
32
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. 03-17-00534-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2018

Denise Stroup, as Legal Guardian of D. L. S., an Incapacitated Person v. MRM Management, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a personal injury car-crash case involving an incapacitated person, Douglas Lee Stroup (Appellant). Appellant sued Penny Harrington Taylor for negligence and MRM Management, Inc. (Appellee) for vicarious liability, alleging Taylor, a licensed real estate salesperson, was acting for MRM. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was granted, asserting Taylor was an independent contractor, thus negating vicarious liability. Appellant argues that the independent contractor agreement is void under the Texas Occupation Code, which assigns liability to brokers for their salespersons' tortious conduct. Furthermore, Appellant contends that MRM should be estopped from relying on the agreement, and that factual disputes exist regarding Taylor's employment status, joint-enterprise liability, and statutory vicarious liability under the Texas Occupations Code. Appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment, arguing sufficient evidence was presented to raise genuine issues of material fact for trial.

Personal InjuryCar CrashVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorReal Estate AgentReal Estate BrokerTexas Occupations CodeRespondeat SuperiorJoint EnterpriseSummary Judgment Appeal
References
22
Case No. 03-94-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 1996

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation v. Barbara Wasiak Tyler Turner Boulo, as Personal Representative of the Heirs and Estate of Stanley Wasiak, James Edwin Wingate, Sr. and Jean Wingate Homer Clifton Brownlee, Sr. and Alma Brownlee And Martha Barnes, Individually

Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation appealed a trial-court judgment awarding compensatory and punitive damages to several appellees. The appellees, including Barbara Wasiak and other individuals, suffered wrongful death, personal injury, and loss of consortium due to exposure to "Kaylo," an asbestos-containing product manufactured by Owens-Corning. The case was tried under Alabama substantive law where the asbestos exposures occurred. Owens-Corning raised eleven points of error, challenging the exclusion of testimony regarding its financial condition, arguing that repetitive punitive damage awards violated due process, and contesting certain jury instructions. The appellate court found no error in the trial court's rulings and affirmed the judgment, concluding that the punitive damages were reasonable and consistent with legal objectives.

asbestos litigationproduct liabilitypunitive damagesmass tortdue process challengeAlabama lawTexas appellate procedurejury instructionswrongful deathpersonal injury
References
59
Case No. 04-17-00235-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2018

Yolanda Jaime Berrelez v. Mesquite Logistics USA, Inc.

Yolanda Jaime Berrelez appealed from the trial court’s order granting Mesquite Logistics USA, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. The trial court found Berrelez failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Berrelez contended she was not required to exhaust these remedies because her claims were subject to the “personal animosity” exception, placing her outside the course and scope of her employment. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC), has initial exclusive jurisdiction to determine compensability and whether an injury occurred within the course and scope of employment, including the applicability of statutory exceptions.

Workers CompensationAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineJurisdictionPersonal Animosity ExceptionCourse of EmploymentSexual AssaultPremises LiabilityGross NegligenceTrial Court Dismissal
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Urdiales v. Concord Technologies Delaware, Inc.

Richard Urdíales, Jr. sued his former employer, Concord Technologies Delaware, Inc., and his supervisor, Alfredo Cantu, after Cantu assaulted him with a steel pipe. The trial court granted summary judgment to Concord, ruling that Urdíales' claims were barred by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act and that he was not engaged in a protected activity. Urdíales appealed, arguing that his negligence and intentional tort claims were not barred by the Act, and his retaliation claim was based on a protected activity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the personal animosity exception to the Workers' Compensation Act did not apply, nor did the intentional tort exception under respondeat superior. Additionally, the court found that Urdíales' retaliation claim based on filing a lawsuit was not a protected activity under the Texas Labor Code.

Workers' CompensationRetaliationIntentional TortRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentAssaultEmployment LawPersonal Animosity ExceptionExclusive RemedyTexas Labor Code
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Security Insurance Co. v. Nasser

This is a workers' compensation case on remand from the Supreme Court, concerning Izzat Nasser, a worker assaulted on the job by a third party, Victor Daryoush. The central legal question revolves around whether Nasser's injury was sustained in the course of his employment, specifically addressing the 'personal-animosity' exception under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Supreme Court previously ruled the exception inapplicable, citing that the assault was incidental to Nasser's employment duties and Daryoush's mental incapacity to form rational intent. This court now reviews factual sufficiency and other points raised on remand. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the injury occurred in the course of employment and that Daryoush lacked rational intent at the time of the assault.

Workers' CompensationAssaultCourse of EmploymentPersonal Animosity ExceptionRational IntentMental IncapacityRemandFactual SufficiencyJury VerdictTexas Law
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 5,025 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