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. W2012-00469-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2012

In the Matter of: D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.

This case concerns the appeal of D.C., Sr. against the termination of his parental rights to his four children (D.C., Jr., G.C., D.C., and H.C.). The Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) removed the children due to neglect and abuse. The juvenile court terminated his parental rights on grounds of abandonment (failure to provide a suitable home), substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan, and persistent conditions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, agreeing with the juvenile court on most grounds but reversing the finding on abandonment by failure to support, concluding that even minimal payments were token support and that the father ceased payments upon moving to Texas. The appellate court found overwhelming evidence that termination was in the children's best interest.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectChild AbuseAbandonmentPermanency Plan NoncompliancePersistent ConditionsJuvenile Court AppealChild SupportBest Interest of ChildFoster Care
References
39
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Case No. No. E2003-01832-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2004

In Re: C.D.C., Jr.

The case "In re C.D.C., JR." concerns the termination of parental rights of Christopher Dean Collins, Sr. to his son, C.D.C., Jr. The Juvenile Court for Greene County terminated the father's rights based on statutory grounds of willful non-support, non-visitation, and the child's best interests. The father appealed, arguing he was unaware of his son's location. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the lower court's decision, citing the father's lack of credibility, failure to maintain contact or provide support despite legal obligations, and general indifference. The court emphasized that the child was thriving in a prospective adoptive foster home, making termination in his best interest, and found clear and convincing evidence of abandonment and parental unfitness.

Termination of Parental RightsChild AbandonmentChild SupportParental UnfitnessBest Interest of ChildAppellate CourtJuvenile LawVisitation RightsDue ProcessCredibility Assessment
References
16
Case No. 2014-1942 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2017

AL Acupuncture, P.C. v. Geico Ins. Co.

This case, AL Acupuncture, P.C. v Geico Ins. Co., concerns an appeal from a Civil Court order regarding assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, AL Acupuncture, P.C., sought summary judgment for services rendered, while defendant Geico Insurance Company cross-moved for dismissal. The Appellate Term modified the lower court's order. It denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on claims from September 8 to September 25, 2008, citing the plaintiff's failure to prove the claim was not timely denied and issues with IME scheduling evidence. Conversely, the court granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing claims for services from July 8 to September 5, 2008, as Geico demonstrated timely denial and payment under the workers' compensation fee schedule. The order was affirmed as modified.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentIndependent medical examinationsTimely denialWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAcupuncture servicesAppellate TermProvider actionAssigned claimsCivil Court order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Christopher C. v. Bonnie C.

This divorce action between Christopher C. and Bonnie C. addresses equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and counsel fees. The defendant, Bonnie C., who has a court-appointed guardian due to mental and emotional difficulties, had separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and informally divided marital assets. The court ratified this prior asset division, noting the defendant had dissipated her share. Finding the defendant unable to work and self-support, and the plaintiff capable of employment despite his claims of disability, the court awarded the defendant non-durational permanent maintenance of $2,500 per month and substantial attorney's fees. The plaintiff's motion to suspend or refund temporary maintenance was denied.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceEquitable DistributionGuardianshipMental Health IssuesAsset DissipationAttorney's FeesFinancial CapacityPermanent MaintenanceMarital Property
References
12
Case No. 14-15-00882-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2015

in the Interest of K.I.B.C., a Child

This is an appellant's brief challenging the termination of parental rights of C.B. to her child, K.I.B.C. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) initiated the case due to concerns about neglectful supervision and domestic violence. After an initial conservatorship order, the trial court later terminated C.B.'s parental rights based on Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(E) and (O). C.B. argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination grounds and that the termination was not in K.I.B.C.'s best interest, requesting a reversal and remand.

Parental Rights TerminationChild WelfareFamily Law AppealLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceDomestic ViolenceParental Mental HealthNon-compliance with Service PlanChild's Best InterestTexas Family Code 161.001
References
21
Case No. 02-15-00044-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2016

in the Interest of M.C. and A.C., Minor Children

In this case, R.C. appealed the trial court's judgment for S.G. regarding past-due child support. The dispute originated from a 1986 divorce decree ordering R.C. to pay child support, which S.G. sought to collect over two decades later. The trial court initially awarded S.G. $139,976.43, but this order was later set aside, and a new trial was granted. Subsequently, the trial court signed a judgment for S.G. in the amount of $146,437.56, plus interest, attorney's fees, and court costs. R.C. challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for the arrearages calculation and the award of attorney's fees, and also requested a payout schedule. The appellate court affirmed the attorney's fees and the decision not to establish a payout schedule, but reversed the amount of child support arrearages, rendering judgment for S.G. in the amount of $104,862.27, which was the amount R.C. had stipulated to.

Child Support ArrearagesFamily LawAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceInterest CalculationAttorney's FeesDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialWage AssignmentChild Support Enforcement
References
38
Case No. 13-10-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. v. DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ AND DAVID McQUADE LEIBOWITZ, P.C.

Counsel Financial Services, L.L.C. appealed the denial of its motion to transfer venue from Hidalgo County to Bexar County. This appeal stemmed from Counsel Financial's intervention in a personal injury lawsuit, seeking to claim attorney's fees owed to David McQuade Leibowitz from a settlement. Leibowitz, in turn, intervened defensively, asserting claims against Counsel Financial and seeking injunctions. The appellate court examined whether an interlocutory appeal of the venue ruling was permissible under section 15.003 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which applies to multiple plaintiffs. The court concluded that Leibowitz was an intervening defendant, not a plaintiff, therefore section 15.003 did not apply, and dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

VenueInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionMotion to TransferTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeInterventionPlaintiff StatusDefendant StatusForeign Judgment EnforcementAppellate Court Dismissal
References
19
Case No. 07-15-00327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2015

Herring Bancorp, Inc. C.C. Burgess And C. Campbell Burgess v. John Mikkelsen, Acting Solely in His Capacity as Trustee of the John Mikkelsen Trust

This case concerns a dispute over the redemption of preferred shares and claims of minority shareholder oppression. Appellants, Herring Bancorp, C.C. Burgess, and C. Campbell Burgess, argue that the trial court erred in finding their 2006 and 2013 share redemptions invalid and in ruling that minority oppression is a viable cause of action under Texas law. They contend that Mikkelsen's tort claims should have been dismissed and that all redemptions complied with the Articles of Incorporation, thus Mikkelsen is no longer a shareholder. Appellants seek to reverse the trial court's judgment, including awards for damages and attorney's fees, and request that judgment be rendered in their favor or the case be remanded for a new trial.

Minority Shareholder OppressionStock RedemptionBreach of ContractFiduciary DutySubchapter S CorporationCorporate GovernanceAppellate ProcedureDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney FeesJury Instruction Error
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 9,460 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