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. 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

Walter Ray Culp, III v. Board of Professional Responsibility for the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Attorney Walter Ray Culp, III, previously suspended for five years due to an attempted extortion conviction, sought reinstatement of his law license. The extortion involved brokering witness testimony for a substantial fee. After serving a nineteen-month prison sentence and the five-year suspension, Culp petitioned for reinstatement. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility and the Chancery Court for Williamson County both denied his request. The denials were based on Culp's failure to demonstrate moral qualifications, legal competency, and that his reinstatement would not harm the integrity of the bar or public interest. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed these decisions, citing Culp's lack of credibility, his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions, and the severe nature of his original crime.

Attorney disciplineLaw license reinstatementProfessional misconductAttempted extortionMoral qualificationsLegal competencyCredibility assessmentJudicial reviewAppellate decisionLegal ethics violation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwest Bank v. Information Support Concepts, Inc.

Kelly Rasco, an employee of Information Support Concepts, Inc. (ISC), stole over 183 checks payable to ISC, totaling over $300,000, and deposited them into her personal account at Southwest Bank. The checks lacked ISC's endorsement. ISC sued Southwest Bank for conversion under UCC section 3.420. Southwest Bank attempted to raise affirmative defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk, failure to mitigate damages, and sought to join Rasco as a responsible third party under the proportionate responsibility statute. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of ISC on all these points, ruling that proportionate responsibility and these defenses do not apply to UCC section 3.420 conversion actions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the specific loss allocation provisions of the UCC override the general proportionate responsibility statute, and Southwest Bank has a remedy against Rasco under UCC section 3.416.

ConversionUCCProportionate ResponsibilityDepository BankForged EndorsementsCommercial LawStatutory ConflictTexas LawSummary JudgmentAffirmative Defenses
References
19
Case No. 03-13-00536-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2015

Idiris Sharif Hassan v. Robert L. Rock

In this personal injury case, Idiris Sharif Hassan appealed the trial court's judgment reducing his damages award by his percentage of responsibility. Hassan, a day laborer, was injured while working for Robert L. Rock, who operated a Bobcat. Hassan sued Rock for negligence, arguing that proportionate responsibility should not apply because Rock was his employer and did not subscribe to workers' compensation insurance. The trial court overruled Hassan's objections and submitted proportionate-responsibility questions to the jury, which attributed 43% responsibility to Hassan. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Hassan failed to establish his status as an 'employee' under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act as a matter of law, as his employment was not in the usual course and scope of Rock's business but rather incidental to a personal favor.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProportionate ResponsibilityWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer StatusDay LaborerSkid-Steer LoaderOccupational InjuryDamages AwardTrial Court Judgment
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2023

Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.

Tray Jackson, an emergency medical technician (EMT), initiated a class action lawsuit against Citywide Mobile Response Corp., alleging multiple violations of the New York State Labor Law and NYCRR. Jackson claimed that the defendant failed to provide full wages, including overtime and spread of hours pay, and illegally deducted costs for mandatory uniforms and supplies from employee pay, resulting in wages below the minimum wage. The plaintiff sought class certification for a proposed class of approximately 200 current and former EMTs, paramedics, and drivers. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, presided over by Justice Fidel E. Gomez, granted the motion for class certification, finding that all statutory requirements under CPLR 901 and 902 were satisfied. The court certified a class comprising all individuals working for the defendant as drivers, EMTs, or paramedics in New York between December 30, 2015, and August 15, 2022.

Class Action CertificationLabor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementMinimum WageSpread of Hours PayWage NoticesIllegal Wage DeductionsEMT
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero

The Texas Supreme Court overruled its long-standing precedent that prohibited the admissibility of seat belt evidence in car accident cases. This decision, based on changes from contributory negligence to proportionate responsibility and modern societal norms regarding seat belt use, allows relevant evidence of seat belt use or non-use to be considered for apportioning responsibility for injuries, even if it did not cause the accident itself. The Court emphasized that the proportionate responsibility statute (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 33.003(a), 33.011(4)) requires fact-finders to consider all conduct contributing to harm, including a plaintiff's pre-occurrence, injury-causing actions. The case was remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with this new opinion, particularly regarding the exclusion of expert testimony on injury causation. This landmark decision aligns Texas tort law with a common-sense approach to personal injury liability.

seat belt defensecomparative faultproportionate responsibilitytort lawevidence admissibilityinjury causationnegligencecivil procedurejudicial precedentstatutory interpretation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
Case No. 11-0549
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2013

Geoffrey Dugger v. Mary Ann Arredondo, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Joel Martinez

This case addresses the availability of the common law "unlawful acts doctrine" as an affirmative defense in personal injury and wrongful death cases in Texas. The petitioner, Geoffrey Dugger, had been granted summary judgment in a wrongful death suit by Mary Ann Arredondo, based on the unlawful acts doctrine, following the death of Joel Martinez from a drug overdose at Dugger's home. The court of appeals reversed this judgment. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' decision, holding that the common law unlawful acts doctrine was abrogated by Chapter 33's proportionate responsibility scheme in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court concluded that Section 93.001 of the Code provides only a narrow, statutory affirmative defense under specific circumstances (final conviction for felony or suicide), and does not broadly preserve the common law doctrine. Consequently, a plaintiff's conduct should generally be considered under proportionate responsibility rather than entirely barring recovery.

Wrongful DeathProportionate ResponsibilityUnlawful Acts DoctrineAffirmative DefenseTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeComparative NegligenceTort LawStatutory InterpretationIllegal ConductDrug Overdose
References
33
Case No. 03-10-00465-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Debra Smith v. James East, Individually and D/B/A Avery Fine Wines & Spirits And Terri Bayless East, Individually and D/B/A Avery Fine Wines & Spirits

Debra Smith appealed a take-nothing judgment in a wrongful-death action following her daughter S.S.'s death from alcohol poisoning. Smith sued James East and Terri Bayless East, owners of Avery Fine Wine & Spirits, for allegedly providing alcohol to S.S., a minor, alleging common-law negligence and negligence per se. A jury found James 35% responsible, S.S. 25% responsible, and Smith 40% responsible. The district court denied recovery, applying Texas's proportionate responsibility scheme which treats a wrongful-death plaintiff and the decedent as a single 'claimant' whose combined responsibility (65%) exceeded the 50% recovery threshold. The appellate court affirmed, holding that binding precedent compelled the conclusion that Smith and S.S. are a single 'claimant' for purposes of section 33.001, thus barring recovery.

Wrongful DeathAlcohol PoisoningMinor Alcohol ConsumptionNegligence Per SeProportionate ResponsibilityComparative NegligenceStatutory InterpretationClaimant DefinitionDerivative ClaimsJury Verdict
References
34
Case No. 23-1039
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

In Re East Texas Medical Center Athens

An employee, Sharon Dunn, was injured while working for East Texas Medical Center Athens (ETMC Athens), a nonsubscribing employer to the Texas workers’ compensation program. Dunn sued ETMC Athens for negligence. ETMC Athens sought to designate an emergency medical technician (EMT) and his employer as responsible third parties, which the trial court initially granted but later struck upon Dunn's motion. The court of appeals denied ETMC Athens's request for mandamus relief. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by striking the designation. The Supreme Court concluded that the proportionate-responsibility statute applies to an employee’s negligence claim against a nonsubscribing employer, the Workers’ Compensation Act does not prohibit such designations, and sufficient evidence supported the third parties' responsibility. Mandamus relief was conditionally granted.

Workers' CompensationNegligence ClaimNonsubscribing EmployerProportionate ResponsibilityResponsible Third PartyMandamus ReliefTrial Court Abuse of DiscretionAppellate RemedyTexas LawWork-related Injury
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 1,474 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