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

Denton v. Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Ass'n

Lane Denton sued the Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Association (DPSOA) and other appellees for wrongful termination, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of privacy, and tortious interference with business. Denton invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination during discovery due to a pending criminal indictment for misappropriation of DPSOA funds. The trial court denied his requests for abatement and a protective order, subsequently dismissing his civil suit for non-compliance with discovery. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that Denton did not waive his privilege by 'offensive use' under the *Republic Insurance Co. v. Davis* test. The court also concluded that dismissal was an excessive sanction given Denton's legitimate assertion of his constitutional rights, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationDiscovery AbuseSanctionsCivil ProcedureDue ProcessEmployment LawWaiverAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
21
Case No. 07-18-00324-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2019

David Sloan Federal Public Defender's Office, Lubbock, Texas Greg Abbott, Governor of the State of Texas Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas Steven C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety Sheriff Cliff Harris, Pecos County Pecos County Sheriff's Department v. John Alan Conroy

Steven C. McCraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), appealed the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by John Alan Conroy. Conroy, a pro se inmate, sought electronic recordings of an interrogation related to a federal child pornography conviction and $20,000,000 in damages for alleged constitutional rights violations under the Texas Constitution. McCraw argued sovereign immunity barred Conroy's claims for monetary damages. The Court of Appeals construed Conroy's petition as a suit for a writ of mandamus under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) regarding the disclosure of the recordings, which is not barred by sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the denial of McCraw's plea to the jurisdiction regarding the mandamus action but modified the order to dismiss Conroy's claim for monetary damages due to sovereign immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityPublic Information ActMandamusDue ProcessTrial Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Government CodeTexas Family CodePro Se LitigantDeclaratory Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Safety Cas. Co. v. Malvoux

Randolph Malvoux, an employee of Magnolia Petroleum Company, sued Safety Casualty Company for Workman’s Compensation due to an alleged accidental injury from overheating during employment on January 29, 1946. The jury found that Malvoux sustained an injury by overheating in the course of employment, which caused paresis, and that this injury resulted in total and permanent incapacity. The appellant, Safety Casualty Company, appealed the judgment, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including medical testimony supporting the link between overheating and the activation of syphilis leading to paresis, and found it sufficient. The court also upheld the trial judge's discretion in refusing to reopen the case for additional testimony. Ultimately, all of the appellant's points were overruled, and the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationOverheating InjuryParesisSyphilis AggravationAccidental InjuryTotal IncapacityPermanent DisabilityEmployer LiabilityMedical TestimonyAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Relco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Thomas Doss and Releo, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed an action seeking to enjoin the Consumers Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from enforcing certain sections of the Consumers Product Safety Act against their product, the "Wel-Dex" arc welder, and requested a three-judge panel for constitutional questions. The CPSC had issued a public warning about the Wel-Dex after an investigation, despite the plaintiffs' attempts to secure a prior hearing. The plaintiffs challenged the CPSC's delegation of authority for issuing such warnings and sought pre-enforcement judicial review. The court, presided over by District Judge Noel, determined that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and that the matter was not ripe for judicial review. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the cause was dismissed.

Consumer Product Safety ActAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionSubdelegation of AuthorityPublic WarningPre-enforcement ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesRipeness for ReviewThree-Judge CourtDue Process
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2014

Marquez v. L & M Development Partners, Inc.

The plaintiff, an injured laborer, filed a personal injury lawsuit following a fall at a construction site, alleging Labor Law violations and common-law negligence against multiple parties, including Pro Safety Services, LLC (PSS), a safety consultant. PSS sought summary judgment to dismiss claims against it and for judgment on its own cross-claims. The Supreme Court initially denied PSS's motion. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court granted PSS summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law and common-law negligence causes of action against PSS, and also dismissed various contribution and common-law indemnification claims against PSS, finding PSS lacked supervisory control. However, the denials of PSS's motion concerning contractual indemnification and failure to procure additional insured status were affirmed due to PSS's failure to meet its prima facie burden. The order was affirmed as modified on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law ViolationsCommon Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationSafety ConsultingAppellate ReviewContractual Obligations
References
45
Case No. ADJ9170309
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Miguel Mosqueda vs. City of Clearlake

Applicant Miguel Mosqueda sought reconsideration of a July 25, 2025 decision which found his injuries were not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct or violation of safety orders. Mosqueda, a maintenance worker, suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree for the City of Clearlake. He contended that the employer violated several Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 sections related to safety, training, and equipment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct and that no alleged safety violation was the proximate cause of the accident.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderViolation of statuteViolation of safety orderCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3203Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(d)(1)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(e)(15)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(b)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(d)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2006

Toussaint v. Angello

The petitioners sought a determination that the respondent, Commissioner of Labor, violated Labor Law § 27-a (4) (b) by not adopting a safety standard recommended by the New York State Occupational Safety and Health Hazard Abatement Board. The Supreme Court denied this petition, and that decision was subsequently affirmed. The appellate court clarified that the statute does not compel the Commissioner to automatically promulgate all Board recommendations. Instead, it mandates consultation and a showing of necessity for any new standard. The Commissioner's decision to return the proposal for further review was therefore deemed a lawful exercise of authority, not arbitrary or capricious.

Labor LawSafety StandardsOccupational SafetyHazard Abatement BoardCommissioner of LaborStatutory InterpretationPromulgation of RegulationsJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawMinisterial Duty
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eatherly Constraction Co. v. Department of Labor & Workforce Development

Eatherly Construction Company appealed a finding by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission that it violated an OSHA regulation by allowing an employee to enter an unprotected excavated trench. The company argued that its foreman, Denzil Evans, who entered the trench, was not an 'employee' under controlling regulations, or alternatively, that his actions constituted employee misconduct. The Davidson County Chancery Court affirmed the Commission's decision, finding Eatherly in violation and liable. This appellate court upheld the Chancery Court's decision, determining that the foreman qualified as an 'employee' under both statutory and regulatory definitions and that Eatherly failed to prove its affirmative defense of employee misconduct. The court also addressed the burden of proof for employee misconduct, holding it to be an affirmative defense resting on the employer.

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)Trenching and ExcavationEmployee Safety RegulationsForeman ResponsibilityEmployer LiabilityWorkplace Safety ViolationsAdministrative AppealsJudicial Review of Agency DecisionsAffirmative DefenseEmployee Misconduct Defense
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06730
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2018

Morocho v. Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold lacking safety railings while renovating an apartment building owned by Boulevard Gardens Owners Corp. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff met his prima facie burden by demonstrating a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation due to the absence of safety devices, and a Labor Law § 241 (6) violation because the movable scaffold lacked safety railings as required by 12 NYCRR 23-5.18 (b). The defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLabor LawAppellate ReviewPrima Facie BurdenSafety RailingsProximate CauseWorkplace Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. BR Dredging Co., Inc.

Feliciano G. Rodriguez, a seaman, sued B-R Dredging Company, Inc. under the Jones Act and general maritime law for injuries sustained after falling through an open hatch on a tender boat. He alleged negligence and unseaworthiness, including violations of Corps of Engineer safety regulations. A jury found the defendant negligent and the vessel unseaworthy, awarding $150,000 in damages, but also found Rodriguez 55% contributorily negligent, reducing the award. Rodriguez appealed, arguing that contributory negligence should not apply due to the defendant's violation of a statutory safety duty under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). The appellate court sustained the appellant's first point of error, reversing the 55% reduction, holding that a violation of a safety statute by the employer precludes the consideration of the seaman's contributory negligence. The trial court's judgment was reversed in part and affirmed in all other respects.

Jones ActMaritime LawSeaman InjuryContributory NegligenceFederal Employers' Liability ActStatutory ViolationUnseaworthinessNegligenceSafety RegulationsCorps of Engineers Manual
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 8,362 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