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. 13-17-00276-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Roberto Morales Garza v. Bryan Robinson

Appellant Roberto Morales Garza appealed a trial court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of appellee Bryan Robinson. Garza had failed to file a timely response to Robinson's motion for summary judgment and subsequently appealed the denial of his motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, reviewed the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial for an abuse of discretion, considering whether the Craddock factors were applicable. The court determined that Craddock was not applicable to a motion for new trial filed after summary judgment due to an untimely response. Finding no abuse of discretion, as Garza failed to establish good cause for his untimely response, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Summary JudgmentMotion for New TrialUntimely ResponseAbuse of DiscretionCraddock FactorsTexas Court of AppealsCivil ProcedureDue ProcessProperty DisputeAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 01-07-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2009

AllStyle Coil Company, L.P. v. Roberto Carreon

Roberto Carreon, an employee of Allstyle Coil Company, L.P., sustained leg injuries from wet concrete and subsequently sued his employer for negligence. Allstyle Coil, a nonsubscriber to the Texas Worker’s Compensation system, moved to compel arbitration, which resulted in an award of approximately $217,000 to Carreon. Allstyle Coil appealed the trial court's judgment confirming the arbitration award, contending the arbitrator exceeded his authority and manifestly disregarded the law. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that 'manifest disregard of the law' is no longer a valid non-statutory ground for vacating an arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act. The court also found that Allstyle Coil failed to demonstrate the arbitrator exceeded his authority, primarily due to the absence of the arbitration agreement in the appellate record.

TexasArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActVacaturManifest Disregard of LawAppellate ReviewEmployer NegligenceWorker InjuryNonsubscriberScope of Authority
References
8
Case No. 04-0550
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2006

Fifth Club, Inc. and David A. West v. Roberto Ramirez

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed the liability of an employer for the acts of an independent contractor providing security services. The case stemmed from an incident at Club Rodéo where security guard David West, an independent contractor, injured Roberto Ramirez, who subsequently sued Fifth Club, Inc. (the owner) and West. Ramirez argued for vicarious liability against Fifth Club based on a "personal character exception" for security work, and alleged negligence and malice in West's hiring. The Court declined to adopt a distinct personal character exception, asserting that employer liability is governed by existing control or nondelegable duty exceptions. Finding insufficient evidence that Fifth Club controlled West's actions or was negligent/malicious in his hiring, the Court reversed the judgment against Fifth Club, Inc. However, the Court affirmed the award of future mental anguish damages against David West, finding sufficient evidence to support this claim.

Independent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityPersonal Character ExceptionSecurity ServicesNegligent HiringMaliceFuture Mental Anguish DamagesPremises LiabilityNondelegable DutyTortious Acts
References
38
Case No. 03-08-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2010

Ronald R. Wagner v. Roberto D'Lorm and Edward P. Dancause

Appellant Ronald R. Wagner sued appellees Roberto D'Lorm and his attorney Edward P. Dancause in Travis County district court, seeking a declaration that a default judgment previously obtained against him in Zapata County was void due to the Zapata County court's lack of personal jurisdiction over Wagner. The Travis County trial court granted D'Lorm's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to declare another district court's judgment void, and denied Wagner's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Wagner contended the trial court erred by not recognizing that a void judgment is subject to collateral attack in a court of equal jurisdiction. The appellate court held that a co-equal court indeed has subject-matter jurisdiction to declare a void judgment from another court to be void. It found Wagner's pleadings sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's dismissal order, and remanded the cause for further proceedings, without addressing the denial of summary judgment.

Collateral AttackVoid JudgmentSubject-Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionDefault JudgmentPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureLack of Service
References
26
Case No. 04-17-00291-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2018

Roberto Avila Rodriguez v. Panther Expedited Services Inc., Amigo Staffing, Inc., Dicex International, Inc.

Appellant Roberto Avila Rodriguez brought a negligence action against Panther Expedited Services, Inc., Amigo Staffing, Inc., and Dicex International, Inc., seeking to recover for injuries sustained while operating a forklift. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dicex and Panther, dismissing Dicex’s third-party claims against Amigo Staffing as moot. Rodriguez appealed, challenging the summary judgments and the dismissal of Dicex's claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Panther, finding no vicarious liability under federal motor carrier regulations or common law, and insufficient evidence of Panther's own negligence. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for Dicex and remanded that portion of the case, concluding that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act provision Dicex relied upon was inapplicable to the date of injury.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActTemporary Employment ServicesFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNondelegable DutyIndependent ContractorRight of Control
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jimenez v. Estate of Jimenez

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Julio Jimenez, while operating a grocery business owned by the estate of his deceased brother Roberto, was murdered. Julio's wife, Amparo Jimenez, filed for workers' compensation benefits for herself and their three minor children. The Board found an employer-employee relationship existed between Julio and Roberto's estate, a decision contested by the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the estate, by accepting the benefits of Julio's efforts, was estopped from denying an employment relationship.

Employment RelationshipEstate LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHomicideUninsured Employers' FundAppellate ReviewEstoppelDependent BenefitsBusiness OperationVolunteer Services
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Camarena v. Texas Employment Commission

Roberto Camarena and other Texas farm workers appealed the dismissal of their suit challenging the constitutionality of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act (TUCA), the denial of attorney's fees, and the assessment of costs. The farm workers originally sued the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) after an agricultural exemption denied them unemployment benefits, which the trial court found unconstitutional. While TEC appealed, the Legislature amended TUCA, providing phased-in coverage. The court of appeals later declared the judgment moot regarding the injunction and denied attorney's fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the suit was not moot, sovereign immunity does not bar attorney's fees under Chapter 106 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, and all costs should be assessed against the State. The Court affirmed declaratory relief, vacated the injunction, and awarded $36,810 in attorney's fees to the farm workers.

unemployment compensationagricultural workersconstitutional lawequal rights amendmentsovereign immunityattorney's feescourt costsmootness doctrineinjunctive reliefdeclaratory judgment
References
11
Case No. ADJ1417978 (STK 0211694)
Regular
Dec 03, 2012

ROBERTO MANZO vs. MCCARTHY BUILDING COMPANIES, CHARTIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision. The applicant, Roberto Manzo, sought reconsideration of the finding that he was laid off due to lack of work, not as retaliation for his injury claim, and therefore no violation of Labor Code § 132a occurred. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation judge, who found ample evidence to support the conclusion of a layoff due to lack of work, not discrimination. The Board gave great weight to the judge's credibility determinations based on the evidence presented.

WCABReconsiderationLabor Code § 132aCarpenterInjuryMcCarthy Building CompaniesChartisWorkers' Compensation JudgeFindings of FactPermanent Disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. 2021-03-1249
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2022

Padilla, Roberto Arturo Diaz v. Jose Mejia

Roberto Arturo Diaz Padilla filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking a decision on the record for medical benefits after sustaining a work injury. He was injured on November 12, 2021, while operating a grinder as an employee of Jose Mejia’s uninsured construction company, resulting in a hand injury and surgery by orthopedist Dr. Daniel Branham. Jose Mejia failed to provide workers' compensation insurance or medical benefits, leading Mr. Padilla to incur significant medical expenses. The Court found that Mr. Padilla presented sufficient evidence to show a likelihood of prevailing at a hearing on the merits, entitling him to payment of both his past and future reasonable and necessary medical expenses. The Court also held that Mr. Padilla satisfied the requirements for consideration of discretionary payment through the Uninsured Employers Fund.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsUninsured EmployerWork InjuryHand InjurySurgeryOrthopedistTennessee LawEmployer Non-ComplianceUninsured Employers Fund
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 81 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