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. 19-1032
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2021

in the Matter of the Marriage of Angelina Sandoval and Angel Sandoval and in the Interest of A.M.S., a Child

This case involves an appeal of a no-answer default judgment in a divorce proceeding between Angelina Sandoval and Angel Sandoval. Angel, the husband, sought a new trial, asserting equitable grounds under the Craddock standard and arguing improper service of process. The trial court initially denied his motion, sustaining a hearsay objection to his affidavit, a decision affirmed by the court of appeals which cited formal defects in the affidavit. However, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed this decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred by rejecting Angel's affidavit as hearsay, clarifying that facts based on personal knowledge are not hearsay. Furthermore, the higher court found that any formal defects in the affidavit's jurat were waived by the opposing party's failure to object at the trial court level, and Angel's affidavit provided a reasonable, uncontroverted explanation for his failure to answer, setting forth a meritorious defense concerning separate property.

DivorceDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock StandardEquitable GroundsService of ProcessHague Service ConventionAffidavit AdmissibilityHearsay ObjectionSeparate Property
References
22
Case No. 08-21-00095-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2022

Carlos Lamas v. Luis Raul Sandoval Gonzalez

An interlocutory appeal arose from a trial court's grant of a temporary injunction in a contract for deed dispute. Appellant Carlos Lamas challenged the injunction, which prevented him from evicting Appellee Luis Raul Sandoval Gonzalez and allowed Sandoval to continue mortgage payments. Lamas argued various procedural errors and the inapplicability of relevant property codes. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in granting the injunction and ruling that Sandoval had shown a probable right to recovery and probable injury. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the merits.

Contract for DeedTemporary InjunctionProperty LawReal Estate DisputeForcible Entry and DetainerMortgage PaymentsBreach of ContractAppellate CourtTexas Property CodeAbuse of Discretion
References
39
Case No. 13-24-00104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Minerva R. Sandoval v. Elma Nydia Compean, as Independent of the Estate of Hugo Hinojosa

Minerva R. Sandoval appealed a trial court's judgment favoring Elma Nydia Compean, the independent executrix of Hugo Hinojosa's estate. The case originated from a dispute over a "joint venture partnership" and property ownership between Sandoval and Hinojosa, who cohabited from 1993 to 2017. Compean alleged that Sandoval wrongfully excluded Hinojosa from the partnership, withheld rents, and failed to return funds after Hinojosa's death. The trial court awarded Compean an undivided one-half interest in eight real properties, $264,400 in rental income, and $15,000 for reimbursement. The Thirteenth District Court of Texas affirmed the judgment, largely concluding that Sandoval's ten appellate issues were inadequately briefed, lacking sufficient legal authority or record citations.

Appellate ProcedureInadequate BriefingContract DisputePartnership AgreementStatute of FraudsPromissory EstoppelEstate LawReal Estate DisputeCohabitation AgreementProperty Reimbursement
References
21
Case No. 2017-06-2147
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2018

Sandoval, Salvador v. Mark Williamson d/b/a Tennessee Steel Structures

This workers' compensation case revolves around Salvador Sandoval, an employee, seeking increased permanent disability benefits after a work-related injury. The employer, Tennessee Steel Structures, contested the claim, citing Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(F), which bars undocumented workers from recovering additional benefits. Sandoval challenged the constitutionality of this statute. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims at Nashville denied Sandoval's request for increased benefits, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to determine the facial constitutionality of a state statute, citing appellate precedents. The decision noted that if a higher court found the statute unconstitutional, Sandoval would be entitled to stipulated benefits.

Undocumented WorkersConstitutional ChallengeJudicial AuthorityStatutory InterpretationPermanent Disability BenefitsEmployer LiabilityImmigration LawTennessee Code AnnotatedWorkers' Compensation ClaimsBenefit Denial
References
3
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08017 [192 AD3d 91]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Sandoval v. Leake & Watts Servs., Inc.

Eduardo Sandoval, a nonverbal autistic resident, suffered burns from a heated potato masher at a residential facility operated by Leake and Watts Services, Inc. (L&W). His co-guardians sued L&W, its employees Asialone Edwards and Wendell Chavies, alleging battery, negligence, and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training. The Supreme Court denied L&W's and Edwards' motions for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified this decision, dismissing claims against L&W based on respondeat superior, but affirmed the denial of summary judgment for negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training claims, and for Edwards' individual claims. The court highlighted L&W's failure to adequately check employee references and that the potential for abuse was foreseeable based on L&W's own training materials.

Negligent hiringNegligent retentionNegligent supervisionNegligent trainingRespondeat superiorSummary judgmentAutismResidential facilityEmployee misconductPropensity to commit injury
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
Case No. ADJ2340078 (SDO 0304111) ADJ1779622 (SDO 0299855) ADJ6531135
Regular
May 16, 2014

FELIX SANDOVAL, vs. PACIFIC WASTE, dba ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, administered by CHARTIS,

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Felix Sandoval's petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge, finding no grounds to overturn the prior decision. The specific reasons for the denial are detailed in the WCJ's report, which was incorporated by reference. Consequently, the applicant's request for a review and potential reversal of the original ruling was rejected.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationDENIEDworkers' compensation administrative law judgeWCJPACIFIC WASTEALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIESCHARTISADJ2340078SDO 0304111
References
0
Case No. ADJ8855494
Regular
Nov 06, 2013

MARIA SANDOVAL vs. GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Maria Sandoval's petition for reconsideration. Sandoval sought to reopen her case alleging knee surgery and temporary disability after previously stipulating to a 5% permanent disability award. The Board found no competent evidence to support Sandoval's new claims, as her physician had declared her permanent and stationary. Furthermore, the Board held that stipulations are binding and Sandoval failed to show good cause to set aside the award, though she remains within the five-year period to petition for new and further benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStipulations with Request for AwardPermanent DisabilityTemporary DisabilityMedical TreatmentWCJDr. HaberAmended StipulationsPetition to Reopen
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 10,605 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