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

Ellis v. State

Appellant pleaded guilty to drug delivery and was sentenced to ten years' incarceration. On direct appeal, appellant alleged errors in probation law information during the trial and jury charge, which were unobjected to, leading to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. This court granted discretionary review, finding significant errors in the jury charge regarding probation conditions, specifically omissions of possible conditions and an incorrect limitation on the judge's discretion. These errors were exacerbated by conflicting testimony from the Chief Probation Officer and misleading arguments by both attorneys. Given the appellant's strong candidacy for probation, the erroneous information in the jury charge and during trial denied him a fair trial. Consequently, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.

Probation ConditionsJury Charge ErrorsIneffective Assistance of CounselDiscretionary ReviewCriminal ProcedureFair TrialSentencingDrug OffenseTexas Criminal LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2013

People v. Stanley

Defendant appealed his conviction for attempted rape and rape, arguing the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based on his alleged violation of sentence conditions. The court's sentence promise was conditioned upon defendant truthfully answering questions from the probation department for his presentence report. Defendant provided inconsistent statements to the probation officer and a social worker regarding his sexual contact with the younger victim, which led to the enhanced sentence. The appellate court concluded the record was unclear whether defendant actually lied to the probation officer about having sexual intercourse with the younger victim. Consequently, the case was remitted to the County Court for a hearing to determine if there was sufficient evidence of untruthful answers.

Enhanced SentencePlea AgreementSentence ConditionsProbation ReportPresentence InvestigationTruthfulnessSexual OffensesRapeAttempted RapeGenesee County Court
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. 2-09-265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. v. Shelby Jackson

Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. appealed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. The appellants contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish DTPA violations, economic damages, an unconscionable act by Norris, mental anguish damages, and entitlement to treble damages or attorney's fees. The trial court found that Avery violated the DTPA by misrepresenting rights and failing to disclose information, causing $500 in economic damages, which were trebled. It also found Norris committed an unconscionable act intentionally, causing $2,500 in mental anguish damages, also trebled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all findings.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActEconomic DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesContract ModificationConsumer ProtectionTexas Law
References
46
Case No. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
Case No. 05-18-00564-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC v. Ralph Carrington D/B/A Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat , LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, Turpin and Turpin, Inc.

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC appealed the trial court's summary judgments in favor of Ralph Carrington d/b/a Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, and Turpin and Turpin, Inc. Regency argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Regency had no evidence of damages because its insurance carrier paid the underlying personal injury settlement and defense costs. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the collateral source rule does not apply to Regency under the facts of this case because Regency made no payments and received no payments from any other party. Furthermore, Regency's insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, failed to properly assert its subrogation rights or intervene in the lawsuit.

Summary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleInsurance CoverageSubrogation RightsBreach of ContractNegligenceIndemnityAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. 533094
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Juan Bidot

Juan A. Bidot, a probation officer, filed an occupational disease claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging he developed posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression due to prolonged exposure to sex offenders. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, disallowing the claim because Bidot failed to demonstrate that his psychological stress was greater than that experienced by similarly situated officers. Bidot appealed the Board's denial of his request for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion as Bidot failed to present newly discovered evidence or a material change in condition.

Occupational DiseasePosttraumatic Stress DisorderPTSDMental HealthWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionReconsideration ApplicationBoard ReviewProbation Officer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Weitz

The defendant, Michael Weitz, moved for early termination of his 10-year probation sentence, citing rehabilitation. A hearing was held on May 10, 2012, where Rabbi Efraim Salzman testified on Weitz's behalf, and Weitz also testified. The court reviewed his history, including prior convictions for sexual abuse and unlawful imprisonment in Sullivan County (2002), and attempted sexual abuse in New York County (2004), which led to the current probation. Weitz presented evidence of religious observance and participation in a relapse prevention program, but failed to provide expert testimony on his rehabilitation or demonstrate full acceptance of responsibility. The court found that Weitz had not diligently complied with probation terms and that his claims of rehabilitation and reasons for early termination (travel, marriage) were unconvincing. Consequently, the motion for early termination of probation was denied.

Probation TerminationSex OffenderRehabilitation AssessmentCriminal Procedure Law 410.90Penal LawCorrection LawWitness CredibilityPsychiatric EvaluationRisk AssessmentSentencing Discretion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Kestenbaum

Joshua Kestenbaum, on probation for conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, was charged by the United States Probation Department for the Eastern District of New York with violating his probation conditions. District Judge Nina Gershon found that Kestenbaum knowingly and willfully made false statements to the government and the Probation Department, and failed to make required restitution payments. The court concluded that Kestenbaum had sufficient resources to pay restitution but chose to maintain his lifestyle instead. The motion to dismiss Charge 3, related to restitution failure, was denied, and Kestenbaum's resentencing was set for February 27, 2013.

Probation ViolationFalse StatementsRestitution PaymentsFinancial DisclosureCriminal HistorySentencing GuidelinesWire FraudBank FraudWillful Non-PaymentMaterial Misrepresentation
References
20
Case No. 14-09-00319-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

Jose Armando DeLeon v. State

This dissenting opinion addresses claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the punishment phase of trial. The dissenting Justice disagrees with the majority's conclusion that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance by calling a probation officer, Charles Russ, as a witness and by failing to object to his testimony regarding the rehabilitation of sexual offenders. The dissent argues that calling a probation officer was a sound trial strategy to present evidence of probation conditions and that counsel strategically used Russ's testimony to advocate for probation. Furthermore, the dissent finds no prejudice, arguing that other evidence, such as the willingness of appellant's friends and family to allow him access to young girls, would have led to the same outcome. The opinion also addresses the admission of evidence regarding the appellant's national origin and legal residency, concluding it was not per se inadmissible or prejudicial and could have been part of a valid trial strategy.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselDissenting OpinionPunishment PhaseProbation Officer TestimonySexual Offenders RehabilitationTrial StrategyPrejudice AnalysisCriminal AppealsTexas Court of AppealsStrickland Test
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 4,514 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