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. 06-02-00107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2003

Joseph Vasquez and Guilda Vasquez, Individually and as Next Friends of Their Minor Child, Kraig Vasquez v. Six Flags Houston, Inc., D/B/A Waterworld and Ray Hedden, Individually

Kraig Vasquez, a minor and lifeguard, sustained a broken neck during a test ride at Six Flags Houston. Six Flags' insurer, TIG Premier Insurance, denied workers' compensation benefits, citing horseplay. Vasquez's parents filed common-law negligence and intentional conduct claims against Six Flags and Ray Hedden. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the injury occurred within the scope of employment and was not due to horseplay, thus the Texas Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsIntentional TortHorseplay ExceptionCourse of EmploymentTexas Labor LawAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury
References
20
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. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
Case No. 04-14-00295-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2015

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Noel Vasquez

Texas Mutual Insurance Company (appellant) appealed the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction and its order to pay income benefits and sanctions to Noel Vasquez (appellee). Vasquez, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, had received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Mutual. After Vasquez reached a settlement with a third party, Texas Mutual ceased benefit payments, prompting Vasquez to file a motion in the trial court seeking to compel benefits and claiming bad faith. Texas Mutual argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Vasquez had not exhausted administrative remedies with the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC). The appellate court agreed, concluding that the DWC has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes and that Vasquez failed to exhaust the required administrative process. Consequently, the appellate court granted Texas Mutual’s plea to the jurisdiction, dismissed Vasquez’s claims, and vacated the trial court’s order.

Subject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionDivision of Workers’ CompensationPlea to the JurisdictionIncome Benefits DisputeTrial Court Order VacatedJudicial Review of Agency DecisionBad Faith ClaimAppellate Court RulingWorkers' Compensation Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1996

People v. Vasquez

This opinion addresses three consolidated appeals (*People v. Vasquez*, *People v. Dalton*, *People v. Adkinson*) concerning the admissibility of hearsay statements from 911 calls under the "present sense impression" and "excited utterance" exceptions. The Court of Appeals clarified the requirements for present sense impressions, emphasizing strict contemporaneity and independent corroboration, and found these criteria were not met in the offers of proof. Specifically, in Vasquez, the 911 call was excluded due to insufficient corroboration, while Dalton's and Adkinson's 911 statements were inadmissible for lacking contemporaneity. The Court affirmed the convictions in Vasquez and Dalton, and modified Adkinson's sentence regarding consecutive counts while otherwise affirming the conviction.

Hearsay RulePresent Sense ImpressionExcited Utterance911 CallsEvidentiary LawCriminal AppealsCorroboration RequirementContemporaneity PrincipleSentencing ModificationIdentification Testimony
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vasquez v. Six Flags Houston, Inc.

Kraig Vasquez, a lifeguard, suffered a broken neck during a test ride at Six Flags' Waterworld. His employer's insurer denied workers' compensation benefits, alleging horseplay. Vasquez's parents subsequently filed common-law negligence and intentional tort claims against Six Flags Houston, Inc. and lead guard Ray Hedden. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that Vasquez was within the scope of his employment and not engaged in horseplay, thus making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. The court also found insufficient evidence of intentional action by the employer.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimIntentional TortHorseplay ExceptionCourse of EmploymentTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. 14-17-00870-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2019

Sonya Ashley v. North Houston Pole Line, L.P. and Joaquin Jimenez

Sonya Ashley appealed a final judgment awarding her $207,617.44 in actual damages for negligence against North Houston Pole Line, L.P. and Joaquin Jimenez. Ashley claimed her vehicle was hit by a truck driven by Jimenez in the scope of his employment with North Houston. The jury awarded damages, and Ashley moved for judgment on this verdict. On appeal, Ashley contended the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony and that the damages were against the great weight of the evidence. However, the appellate court held that Ashley waived her two issues on appeal because she moved for judgment on the jury's verdict without reserving the right to complain or filing a motion for a new trial. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Legal precedentWaiver of appealJury verdictDamagesExpert testimonyNegligence claimAppellate procedureTexas lawFinal judgmentPreservation of error
References
9
Case No. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Dec 16, 2015

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of its intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days due to a pattern of misconduct, frivolous tactics, and failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionAppeals Board en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentWCJDiscovery abuse
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 257
Significant

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days, citing a pattern of bad-faith tactics, frivolous actions, and repeated failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionWCAB en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsUnnecessary delayLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentRepeated misconduct
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Feb 18, 2016

vs. JAVIER JIMENEZ

The Appeals Board suspended the privilege of Javier Jimenez to appear as a representative for 180 days due to his failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Suspend, which was based on non-compliance with prior sanction orders.

WCABLabor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionNotice of IntentionSanction ordersEn banc decisionAdministrative law judgeCompliance180-day suspensionFurther hearing
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 188 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