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. Docket No. 406
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2005

Frew v. Hawkins

This civil action, initiated in 1993, addresses the alleged failure of the State of Texas to implement a Medicaid program, specifically the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program, for indigent children. A Consent Decree was approved in 1996 to ensure compliance, with the court retaining jurisdiction. Defendants subsequently filed a Rule 60(b) motion in November 2004, seeking either complete dissolution of the Consent Decree or its partial dissolution for urban areas, citing compliance with federal law and changed circumstances. Following a June 2005 hearing, the Court evaluated evidence concerning medical checkups, dental services, outreach efforts, and case management. The Court concluded that Defendants failed to demonstrate significant changed factual circumstances, that the proposed relief was suitably tailored, or that reasonable efforts were made to comply with the decree's obligations. Consequently, Defendants' Rule 60(b) Motion for Relief From Judgment was DENIED, affirming the continued prospective application of the Consent Decree.

Medicaid Program EnforcementEPSDT ServicesConsent Decree ModificationRule 60(b) MotionHealth Care AccessIndigent Children's HealthManaged Care PerformanceState Compliance IssuesOutreach EffectivenessDental Care Access
References
27
Case No. 02-11-00209-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2012

in the Interest of A.B. and H.B., Children

This case involves an appeal by D.B. (Father) against the termination of his parental rights to his children, A.B. and H.B., after a jury trial. This is the second time the case has been before the court, with the previous judgment also being reversed and remanded. The court finds the evidence factually insufficient to support the termination grounds under Texas Family Code sections 161.001(1)(D) and (E), which relate to knowingly placing or allowing children to remain in endangering conditions/surroundings, or engaging in endangering conduct. Specific allegations addressed include H.B.'s failure to thrive, Father's hostile behavior, and the condition of Father's homes. While the court affirms the legal sufficiency of the evidence for termination grounds and the children's best interest, it determines that the factual insufficiency for endangerment necessitates a reversal and remand for a new trial. The dissenting opinion argues that the en banc majority's opinion (A.B. 3) improperly contradicts prior rulings on factual sufficiency.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectPhysical AbuseFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyBest Interest of ChildDomestic ViolencePsychological EvaluationFoster CareTexas Family Law
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 07-15-00442-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2016

in the Interest of D.E.B., S.B., J.B., Children

The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services sought to terminate the parental rights of the mother of D.E.B., S.B., and J.B. The trial court ordered termination of parental rights for S.B. and J.B., but not D.E.B. The mother appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of S.B. and J.B. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination order, citing the mother's long history of inability to provide for her children's physical and emotional needs, protect them from danger, and successfully complete court-ordered service plans. The court found that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the best interest finding.

Termination of Parental RightsChild WelfareBest Interest of ChildFamily LawChild NeglectParental UnfitnessSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewDue ProcessTexas Law
References
13
Case No. 13-00-411-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2001

Cullen Plumbing, Inc., D/B/A Cullen Pools, Inc. and Greg Cullen D/B/A Cullen Pools, Inc. v. Mark Duncan and Teresa Duncan

This case concerns an appeal from a default judgment against Cullen Plumbing, Inc., d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., and Greg Cullen, d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., brought by Mark and Teresa Duncan due to cracking in a pool deck. The appellate court affirmed the default judgment against Greg Cullen individually, finding strict compliance with service rules and evidence of conscious indifference regarding his failure to answer. However, the court reversed and remanded the judgment against Cullen Plumbing, Inc., d/b/a Cullen Pools, Inc., because the record did not demonstrate strict compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107 regarding substitute service, specifically the lack of reflection that service occurred at the court-ordered address.

Default JudgmentService of ProcessTexas Civil ProcedureSubstitute ServiceAppellate ReviewMotion for New TrialConscious IndifferenceCraddock TestJurisdictionDue Process
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Budge v. Post

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses Defendant Troy V. Post’s motion for relief from a January 17, 1980 judgment, which awarded Plaintiff Donald Budge $455,041 for breach of contract. Post sought relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(5) or 60(b)(6), alleging newly discovered evidence that Budge had received funds from a Mexican bankruptcy settlement, which violated an assignment agreement within their 1978 contract. The Court found Post entitled to relief under Rule 60(b)(5), characterizing Budge’s receipt of funds as a setoff. The judgment was amended, reducing Budge's award by $26,080.73 to reflect the funds received.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)Motion for Relief from JudgmentBreach of ContractContractual AssignmentNewly Discovered EvidenceAccord and SatisfactionSetoffAmended JudgmentFederal Court PracticeCivil Procedure
References
53
Case No. 2-03-261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

in the Interest of B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T., Children

This case involves an appeal by a Father and Mother against the trial court's judgment terminating their parental rights to their four children: B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T. Both parents asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination. Father also argued that the trial court's termination order was void due to alleged procedural failures, specifically regarding the one-year deadline for trial and the fourteen-day adversary hearing requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, reviewed these contentions. The court found no merit in the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the endangerment findings and that termination was in the children's best interest, and concluded that the procedural issues raised did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment terminating the parental rights of the Father and Mother.

Parental Rights TerminationIneffective Assistance of CounselChild EndangermentBest Interest of the ChildFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessFamily LawTexas Family CodeTemporary Managing Conservator
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Gorden v. Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C.

This case involves a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Yvette Van Gorden against Defendant Sharinn & Lipshie, P.C., alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant's debt collection letter for a Walmart credit card debt was unclear regarding the distinction between requests for debt verification and the original creditor's name and address. Initially, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment due to the Defendant's failure to oppose, finding an FDCPA violation. However, the Plaintiff's counsel failed to submit proposed damages, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. The Plaintiff subsequently moved for relief from this dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) due to a clerical error by counsel. The Court denied this motion, asserting that an attorney's mistake is not a valid ground for relief under Rule 60(b)(1), although the plaintiff is not precluded from re-filing the action.

FDCPADebt CollectionSummary JudgmentRule 60(b)(1)Attorney MistakeClerical ErrorDismissal Without PrejudiceFederal ProcedureConsumer LawStatutory Damages
References
11
Case No. 13-12-00498-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2013

Juan Alfredo Martinez v. Arthur Beckwith and Benton Beckwith D/B/A B & B Farms

Juan Alfredo Martinez appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Arthur Beckwith, who was sued alongside Benton Beckwith d/b/a B&B Farms for work-related injuries. Martinez raised three issues on appeal: lack of proper notice for the summary judgment hearing, Arthur Beckwith's alleged waiver of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA) affirmative defense, and an error in granting summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Martinez was not prejudiced by the notice issue, Arthur Beckwith had properly pled his TWCA defense, and summary judgment was appropriate as Beckwith conclusively established his TWCA defense, which Martinez failed to rebut with genuine issues of material fact regarding his employment and insurance coverage.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActAffirmative DefenseAppellate ProcedureNotice RequirementWaiverEmployment LawWork-Related InjuryDue ProcessTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 13,790 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