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

Brownsville Pediatric Ass'n v. Reyes

This medical malpractice case involves appellants Dr. Gloria Medina and Brownsville Pediatric Association, who were sued by Jaime Reyes on behalf of his son, Juan Pablo Reyes. Juan Pablo, born prematurely in 1978, suffered severe neurological impairments, including blindness and spastic paraplegia, which a jury found were proximately caused by Dr. Medina's negligence during his care as a newborn. The jury awarded over $8,000,000 in damages, primarily for future medical care. On appeal, the appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding medical causation and damages, several evidentiary rulings concerning the injection of insurance and prior lawsuits, and the imposition of prejudgment interest against Brownsville Pediatric Association. They also argued that the damage award violated a statutory cap. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on negligence and causation, the damage award, the trial court's evidentiary decisions, and the prejudgment interest calculation. The court also ruled that the statutory damage cap was unconstitutional, aligning with prior Texas Supreme Court decisions.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationDamagesFuture Medical ExpensesPrejudgment InterestStatutory CapSufficiency of EvidenceExpert TestimonyVentilation Management
References
43
Case No. CV-22-2294, CV-22-2299
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jose Reyes Bonilla

Jose Reyes Bonilla and Marvin Reyes Bonilla, carpenters, filed workers' compensation claims after being injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling to a job site in an employer-provided van. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed decisions that established their claims against XL Specialty Insurance, ruling that their injuries arose out of and in the course of their employment. XL Specialty appealed, arguing its policy did not cover commuting injuries and that it was not the proper carrier. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding XL Specialty failed to preserve its challenge and that the injuries were compensable due to the employer's control over transportation. The court also concluded that XL Specialty's policy exclusion was inapplicable as the transportation was incidental to the project.

Workers' CompensationMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment InjuriesCourse of EmploymentEmployer Provided TransportationInsurance Coverage DisputeWrap-up PolicyAppellate ReviewPreclusionPenalties
References
17
Case No. 13-00-273-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 03, 2002

Brownsville Pediatric Association and Dr. Gloria Medina v. Reyes, Jaime, as Next Friend of Juan Pablo Reyes, an Incompetent

The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a medical malpractice judgment against Brownsville Pediatric Association and Dr. Gloria Medina. The case involved the negligent care of newborn Juan Pablo Reyes, who suffered blindness and severe neurological impairments (PVL) due to improper ventilator management and intubation procedures. The appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence regarding causation and the excessiveness of the $6.5 million damage award for future medical expenses. The court found the evidence factually and legally sufficient to support the jury's verdict, upheld the damage award, affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings and the calculation of prejudgment interest, and rejected arguments about statutory damage caps.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationSufficiency of EvidenceDamage AwardFuture Medical ExpensesPrejudgment InterestEvidentiary RulingsExpert TestimonyVentilator Management
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes Compania Naviera S.A. v. Manumante S.A.

Petitioner Reyes, owner of the M.V. Paean, sought to vacate or modify an arbitration award. The arbitration arose from a consolidated proceeding between Reyes, Manumante S.A., and Czarnikow-Rionda Co., Inc., concerning a loss Czarnikow sustained because the vessel failed to carry a full cargo. The arbitrators directed Reyes to pay Czarnikow directly for a stipulated loss of $27,500. Reyes argued the panel exceeded its authority, citing a lack of privity of contract with Czarnikow. The Court, however, found that a three-party submission agreement, signed by all involved parties, cured any jurisdictional defect by allowing the arbitrators to apportion liability directly. Consequently, the Court denied Reyes' petition.

ArbitrationArbitration AwardVacate AwardModify AwardConsolidated ArbitrationCharterpartyContract LawPrivity of ContractSubmission AgreementPanel Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Montes-Reyes

Defendant Leonardo Montes-Reyes moved to suppress evidence, including physical items from a hotel room search and statements, obtained on December 19, 2007. Law enforcement agents, including DEA Agent Marlow Luna, gained entry to Montes-Reyes's hotel room using a ruse about searching for a missing four-year-old girl. The court found this initial consent involuntary, equating the "missing girl" ruse to creating a false sense of exigent circumstances, similar to a gas leak emergency. The opinion determined that subsequent written and oral consents to search, as well as statements made by Montes-Reyes, were not sufficiently purged of the taint from the initial illegal entry. Consequently, the court granted Montes-Reyes's motion to suppress all the evidence.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsent to SearchPolice DeceptionVoluntarinessMotion to SuppressExigent CircumstancesFruit of the Poisonous TreeMiranda WarningsDrug Enforcement Agency
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Storage & Processors, Inc.

Ramon Reyes, a forklift operator for Storage & Processors, Inc. (S&P), suffered a severe workplace injury when a coworker, Leonel Guerrero, drove a forklift over his foot. S&P, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, offered an optional Accident Employee Welfare Benefit Plan which Reyes signed, purportedly waiving common law claims against S&P and its employees. After a trial court granted summary judgment for S&P and Guerrero based on this waiver, Reyes appealed. This appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the benefit plan agreement, as a contractual attempt to relieve parties of liability for their own negligence, must satisfy the fair notice requirements of conspicuousness and the express negligence doctrine. The court found that because S&P conceded non-compliance with the conspicuousness requirement and there was a fact issue regarding Reyes's actual knowledge, the agreement was unenforceable and summary judgment was improper.

Workplace InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentWaiverEmployee Benefit PlanCommon Law ClaimsFair NoticeConspicuousnessExpress Negligence DoctrineActual Knowledge
References
19
Case No. 535519
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Audis Reyes

The claimant, Audis Reyes, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from May 31, 2022, which ruled against his claim of total industrial disability. Reyes, a construction worker, established a workers' compensation claim in 2018 under Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A for conditions related to his cleanup work at the World Trade Center site in 2002. Initially classified with a permanent partial disability and a 55% wage-earning capacity for medium work, Reyes sought reclassification to a total industrial disability in June 2021, which was denied by a WCLJ and upheld by the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board properly considered vocational and functional factors and that its determination was supported by substantial evidence, including the carrier's expert opinion that Reyes was capable of sedentary to medium work.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTotal Industrial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityVocational FactorsMedical Expert OpinionWorld Trade Center ClaimChronic RhinitisChronic SinusitisAsthma
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AutoZone, Inc. v. Reyes

Salvador Reyes, a 62-year-old former employee, sued AutoZone, Inc. for age discrimination after his termination, allegedly for violating the company's sexual harassment policy. A jury found in favor of Reyes, awarding significant damages, but the trial court reduced the award. The appellate court further modified the judgment, decreasing the back pay award and deleting punitive damages, while affirming the judgment in all other respects. The court concluded that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that age was a motivating factor in Reyes's discharge, citing a manager's direct statements and disparate treatment of younger employees with similar policy violations. Challenges regarding jury instructions and the calculation of compensatory damages were also addressed and largely overruled.

Age discriminationSexual harassment policyWrongful terminationTexas Labor CodeCompensatory damagesBack payPunitive damagesLegal sufficiency reviewJury instructionsDisparate treatment
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2001

United States v. Reyes

Defendant Christopher Reyes sought a judgment of acquittal after a jury convicted him of conspiracy to transport stolen airbags in interstate commerce. The District Court, reserving judgment on the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion, reviewed the government's evidence to determine if Reyes' knowing and willful participation in the conspiracy was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Evidence included testimony from a co-conspirator's employee, recorded phone calls, and an FBI agent's account of post-arrest interrogations. The Court found the evidence insufficient to establish Reyes' specific intent, citing the ambiguity of his statements and the unreliability of the FBI agent's testimony due to inconsistencies and volunteered opinions. Consequently, the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal was granted, and the court also commented on proper grand jury procedures and witness testimony.

Criminal LawConspiracyStolen PropertyJudgment of AcquittalRule 29 MotionSufficiency of EvidenceWitness CredibilityFBI TestimonyHearsayGrand Jury Proceedings
References
15
Case No. 06-01-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

Ramon Reyes v. Storage & Processors, Inc. and Leonel Guerrero

Ramon Reyes, a forklift operator, sued his employer Storage & Processors, Inc. (S&P) and co-worker Leonel Guerrero for negligence after suffering a workplace injury. S&P, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, offered an employee benefit plan which Reyes signed, purporting to waive common-law claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for S&P and Guerrero, citing waiver, ratification, and estoppel. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana held that the benefit plan, which sought to relieve the employer of liability for its own negligence, was subject to fair notice requirements (conspicuousness and express negligence doctrine). Given S&P's concession that the plan failed the conspicuousness requirement, the agreement was unenforceable unless Reyes had actual knowledge. The appellate court found a fact issue regarding Reyes' actual knowledge, making summary judgment on waiver improper. Furthermore, the court determined that ratification or estoppel would also require Reyes to have full knowledge of his common-law rights, which the defendants failed to conclusively prove for summary judgment. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.

Workplace InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentWaiver of ClaimsRatificationEstoppelFair Notice RequirementsConspicuousnessExpress Negligence DoctrineCommon Law Claims
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 150 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