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. 14-02-00634-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2003

Phillips Petroleum Company, GPM Gas Corporation, Phillips Gas Marketing Company, Phillips Gas Company, and GPM Gas Trading Company v. Kathryn Aylor Bowden, Beulah Poorman Vick, Omer F. Poorman, Monte Cluck and Benny Ted Powell

This interlocutory appeal concerned a trial court's class certification order involving Phillips Petroleum Company and several affiliates as appellants, and royalty owners as appellees. The royalty owners alleged underpayment of royalties due to Phillips' inter-affiliate transactions. The appellate court reviewed the certification of three subclasses, scrutinizing the predominance of common issues and the adequacy of class representation under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The court found that individual issues predominated over common ones, particularly regarding lease interpretations and the intent behind various gas royalty agreements. Furthermore, issues of intra-class antagonism and the potential for res judicata to bar future claims were identified as problems. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the class certification order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Class ActionRoyalty PaymentsOil and Gas LeasesBreach of ContractImplied CovenantsExpress CovenantsClass CertificationPredominance of IssuesAdequacy of RepresentationRes Judicata
References
43
Case No. 01-03-00107-CV, 01-03-00451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2005

Charles Phillips, Individually v. Sulzer Chemtech, USA, Industrial Specialists, Inc., and Altair Strickland, L.L.P. F/K/A Altair Strickland, Inc.

Angelia Stewart suffered fatal injuries after falling from scaffolding at a worksite owned by The Dow Chemical Company. Charles Phillips, asserting he was her husband, along with Jim Stewart (father) and Randy and Teresa Stephens (guardians of her minor child), filed wrongful death and survival claims against Dow and other contractors involved in the project. The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment in the trial court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgments, ruling that Charles Phillips lacked standing as his alleged common-law marriage to Stewart was void due to a prior undissolved marriage. Furthermore, the court found that Chapter 95 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code applied, shielding Dow from liability because it did not retain sufficient control over the work and lacked actual knowledge of the specific dangerous condition.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ClaimsSummary JudgmentStandingCommon-Law MarriagePrior Marriage VoidChapter 95Property Owner LiabilityIndependent ContractorRetained Control
References
27
Case No. 08-04-00179-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

Francisco Garcia, Individually and as Next Friend of Francisco Garcia, Jr., and Kevin Garcia, Minor Children v. J. J. S. Enterprises, Inc., D/B/A/ PDQ Drive-In Grocery

Francisco Garcia, individually and as next friend for his minor children, Francisco Garcia, Jr. and Kevin Garcia (the Garcias), appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc. (J.J.S. Enterprises). The case originated from the death of Rosario Michelle Garcia, who died during a robbery at her employer, PDQ Drive-In Grocery. Mrs. Garcia, a cashier, pursued a shoplifter against company policy, fell from a moving vehicle, and was fatally injured. The Garcias filed a wrongful death suit alleging negligence, but J.J.S. Enterprises moved for summary judgment citing a pre-injury waiver. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling the pre-injury waiver valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' lawsuit.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentPre-Injury WaiverOccupational Accident PlanNon-Subscriber EmployerTexas LawPublic PolicyFair NoticeActual Knowledge
References
21
Case No. M1999-00212-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2000

Phillips v. Phillips

This case involves an appeal stemming from a divorce dispute between Melanie Dianne (Davis) Phillips (Wife) and Thomas Hickman Phillips (Husband) concerning the division of marital property, rehabilitative alimony, attorney's fees, and costs. The appellate court modified the trial court's ruling on marital property, awarding Husband an additional $75,000 from Wife's retirement accounts to achieve an equitable distribution. However, the court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding rehabilitative alimony for Wife, the award of attorney's fees to Wife, and the denial of Husband's motion for costs. Furthermore, Husband's request for attorney's fees on appeal was denied. The case was remanded for the implementation of a qualified domestic relations order reflecting the property modification.

Marital PropertyRehabilitative AlimonyAttorney's FeesChild SupportDivorceAdulteryAppellate ReviewEquitable DistributionSpousal SupportMarital Debt
References
35
Case No. E2015-00407-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2015

Melissa A. Phillips v. Burns Phillips

Melissa A. Phillips, an employee, filed for unemployment benefits after being terminated by Plateau Pediatrics, PLC, while on medical leave. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development initially granted her claim, but the Appeals Tribunal and Board of Review subsequently reversed this decision, citing her ineligibility under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-7-303(a)(1)(A). Phillips then sought judicial review, and the Chancery Court reversed the Board of Review's decision, holding that the voluntary quit disqualification did not apply to an involuntary termination. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that the medical exception within the statute is only applicable to voluntary quits, and finding no evidence that Phillips was discharged for misconduct.

unemployment benefitsmedical leaveinvoluntary terminationvoluntary quitstatutory interpretationadministrative lawappellate reviewTennesseeemployment lawgood cause
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez

The case "F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez" involves a dissenting opinion from a Texas Supreme Court decision concerning the application of proportionate-responsibility statutes to Dram Shop Act claims. The Dueñez family sued F.F.P., a convenience store, after a head-on collision caused by an intoxicated driver who purchased alcohol from F.F.P., resulting in severe injuries. Justice O'Neill's dissent argues that the majority's decision erred by undermining the Dram Shop Act's derivative-liability component, which holds providers responsible for their customers' actions and ensures full recovery for innocent third parties. The dissent contends that the legislative intent was to deter alcohol sales to obviously intoxicated individuals and protect public welfare, a policy compromised by the majority's interpretation that shifts responsibility to potentially insolvent patrons.

Dram Shop ActProportionate ResponsibilityVicarious LiabilityComparative NegligenceAlcoholic Beverage CodeThird-Party InjuryIntoxicated DriverLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc.

The Garcias, family of Rosario Michelle Garcia, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of J.J.S. Enterprises, Inc., their employer, following Mrs. Garcia's death during a robbery at her workplace. Mrs. Garcia died after pursuing a shoplifter, contrary to company policy, and was run over by a fleeing vehicle. The Garcias brought a wrongful death suit, alleging employer negligence, while J.J.S. Enterprises asserted unforeseeability, lack of proximate cause, and a pre-injury waiver. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that the pre-injury waiver Mrs. Garcia signed was valid and enforceable, thereby barring the Garcias' negligence claims. This decision upheld that such waivers, made before June 17, 2001, are not against public policy under Texas law if the employee had actual knowledge of the waiver's terms.

Wrongful DeathNegligence ClaimSummary JudgmentPre-injury WaiverEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanOccupational AccidentNon-subscriber EmployerPublic PolicyExpress Negligence DoctrineFair Notice Requirements
References
24
Case No. 08-90-00237-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 1991

Crawford & Co. v. Garcia

Ramona Garcia, an employee of Mountain Pass Canning Company, was fired after sustaining two work-related injuries and having two worker's compensation claims pending. She sued Crawford & Company, the claims adjusting firm, and Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, the worker's compensation carrier, alleging unfair and deceptive acts in the business of insurance led to her termination. After a jury verdict in her favor in a second trial, the appellate court reversed the judgment. The court ruled that there was no evidence the defendants' conduct was the "producing cause" of Garcia's termination, which was attributed to her failure to adhere to company work rules regarding absences. Furthermore, the court found no interference with Garcia's right to choose her own physician, despite her employer's request for her to see another doctor.

Worker's CompensationWrongful DischargeUnfair Insurance PracticesProducing CauseDeceptive ActsEmployment TerminationMedical ExaminationTexas Insurance CodeAppellate ReviewJury Misconduct
References
13
Case No. 02-0381
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2006

F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. D/B/A Mr. Cut Rate 602 v. Xavier Duenez, and Wife, Irene Duenez, as Next Friends of Carlos Duenez and Pablo Duenez, Minors

This case addresses the applicability of Texas's proportionate responsibility scheme (Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code) to dram shop liability claims. The Supreme Court of Texas revisited and affirmed its holding in Smith v. Sewell, clarifying that the proportionate responsibility statute includes claims under the Dram Shop Act, meaning a dram shop is only responsible for its proportionate share of damages, not automatically all damages caused by an intoxicated patron. The Court reversed the lower court's judgment, which had found F.F.P. Operating Partners vicariously liable and had severed F.F.P.'s cross-action against the intoxicated driver, Ruiz. The Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion by severing the claim and refusing to submit jury questions on Ruiz's proportion of responsibility. The case was remanded for a new trial to allow for proper apportionment of responsibility among all liable parties.

Dram Shop ActProportionate ResponsibilityComparative ResponsibilityVicarious LiabilityNegligent EntrustmentProximate CauseStatutory InterpretationSeverance of ClaimsApportionment of DamagesIntoxication Assault
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradley v. Phillips Chemical Co.

This federal court case concerns a lawsuit filed by individuals employed by Phillips Petroleum Company against Phillips, its insurance carrier, a law firm, and union entities, following a 2000 explosion at a Phillips plant in Pasadena, Texas. Plaintiffs alleged personal injuries and claimed the defendants misrepresented the existence of valid workers' compensation insurance, thereby defrauding them and violating state and federal laws. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Phillips was a valid subscriber to the Texas workers' compensation system, which would make workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, concluding that Phillips was properly insured under Texas law and that the plaintiffs' claims predicated on Phillips not being a valid subscriber were unavailing. Consequently, most of the plaintiffs' claims were deemed foreclosed, and they were directed to file an amended complaint with only legally cognizable claims.

Workers' CompensationTexas Labor LawSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeFraud AllegationsNegligence ClaimsPlant Explosion IncidentOccupational InjuryExclusive Remedy Doctrine
References
68
Showing 1-10 of 1,562 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