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. NO. 2-02-418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Gina Lively and Robert Lively v. Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. D/B/A Huguley Memorial Medical Center

This is a premises liability case arising from an alleged carjacking, abduction, and sexual assault of Gina Lively on the Hospital's premises. Gina and Robert Lively sued Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. d/b/a Huguley Memorial Medical Center, alleging negligence and breach of implied warranty. The trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the Hospital. The Appellants appealed the directed verdict on premises liability, and the denial of their motion to reopen, for mistrial, and for a new trial and sanctions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no evidence of cause-in-fact for negligence and no recognized cause of action for breach of implied warranty.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceDirected VerdictForeseeabilityCause-in-FactImplied WarrantyAbductionSexual AssaultEmployee SafetyInadequate Security
References
41
Case No. 2017-06-0811
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Summers, Mary v. BrightSpace Senior Living, LLC

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee, Mary Summers, initially reported a left leg injury from a fall at work, which the employer, BrightSpace Senior Living, LLC, accepted. Subsequently, Summers reported right shoulder and ribcage injuries from the same incident, which the employer denied, arguing they were not work-related. The trial court ordered the employer to provide medical treatment for these additional injuries. The employer appealed, asserting an incorrect evidentiary standard was applied at the expedited hearing. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order and remanded the case, finding sufficient evidence that the employee's shoulder and ribcage injuries were likely a result of the work-related fall.

Interlocutory AppealInjury CausationMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryRibcage InjuryLeg InjuryEvidentiary StandardPanel of PhysiciansDelayed ReportingPre-existing Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Stigger

This worker's compensation case concerns an appeal by Standard Fire, the carrier, against a judgment rendered in favor of Stigger, the claimant, by a county court at law of Dallas County. The Industrial Accident Board initially awarded Stigger $2,377.62, but after a jury trial initiated by Standard Fire to set aside the award, the court rendered a judgment for Stigger in the amount of $34,692.21. Standard Fire appealed, arguing that the trial court exceeded its jurisdictional limits and erred in not reducing the judgment to conform to Stigger's pleadings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that once jurisdiction is lawfully acquired, subsequent events do not defeat it, and a court can grant complete relief even if the judgment exceeds the initial jurisdictional limits, especially in worker's compensation cases.

Worker's CompensationJurisdiction LimitsCounty Court at LawAmount in ControversyAppellate ReviewTexas Civil StatutesJudicial EconomyPleading ConformityDisability BenefitsIndustrial Accident Board
References
10
Case No. 11-08-00132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2008

A.J. Morris, II Living Trust (A.J. Morris) v. Palo Pinto County

This case involves an appeal by the A.J. Morris, II Living Trust challenging a default judgment in a suit for delinquent taxes. Palo Pinto County had filed a petition seeking $21,779.78 in back taxes, and the trial court issued a default judgment after Morris failed to answer or appear. Morris subsequently filed a pro se motion for a new trial, alleging a lack of notice, a timely mailed answer, and a meritorious defense, but his motion was unverified. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court's denial of the motion for new trial under an abuse of discretion standard. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Morris failed to satisfy the Craddock requirements for setting aside a default judgment because his factual allegations were not verified and were controverted by the county.

default judgmentdelinquent taxesmotion for new trialabuse of discretionunverified allegationsmeritorious defenseappellate reviewcivil procedureTexas lawproperty taxes
References
5
Case No. 01-12-00581-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2013

Newspaper Holdings, Inc., Integracare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson v. Crazy Hotel Assisted Living, LTD, Crazy Hotel Assisted Living GP, LLC, Leisure Life Senior Apartment Housing II, LTD, and Charles v. Miller, Jr.

This case is an appeal from the denial of motions to dismiss a defamation, business disparagement, and tortious interference lawsuit. Appellants, Newspaper Holdings, Inc., IntegraCare of Texas, LLC, and Charlotte Patterson, published articles detailing regulatory issues and investigations at Crazy Hotel Assisted Living facility and its owner, Charles Miller. They sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act (TCPA), asserting their communications were protected free speech on matters of public concern. The appellate court found it had jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Appellants met the TCPA burden, and that Appellees failed to provide prima facie evidence for their claims. The court also determined the commercial speech exemption to the TCPA did not apply, remanding the case for dismissal.

DefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceTexas Citizens' Participation Act (TCPA)Free SpeechPublic ConcernAssisted Living FacilityElder AbuseMedicaid Fraud ProbeNewspaper Articles
References
29
Case No. 03-05-00610-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2006

in Re Senior Living Properties, L.L.C.

Relator Senior Living Properties, L.L.C. petitioned for a writ of mandamus against the trial court's refusal to abate a lawsuit brought by former employee Betty Robinett. Robinett sued Senior Living for negligence and breach of contract after being denied benefits from an Employee Injury Benefit Plan following a job injury. Senior Living contended that Robinett was bound by an arbitration agreement. The Texas Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ruling that Robinett's claims, including those sounding in tort, were encompassed by the arbitration agreement in the Employee Protection Plan, thereby compelling her to undergo mediation and binding arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment InjuryMandamus PetitionContract BreachNegligence ClaimEmployee Benefits PlanTexas Appellate CourtDispute ResolutionWorkers' Compensation AlternativeWaiver of Rights
References
19
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06887 [211 AD3d 432]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2022

Lively v. Wafra Inv. Advisory Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Francis P. Lively, appealed an order that dismissed his complaint against Wafra Investment Advisory Group, Inc. and Fawaz Al-Mubaraki. Lively, a former senior managing director, alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws after being terminated due to sexual harassment complaints. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Lively failed to sufficiently allege age discrimination or a causal connection for retaliation. Additionally, his claims for tortious interference, defamation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit were also found to be inadequately pleaded or barred by other laws. The Second Circuit's prior dismissal of federal claims did not, however, preclude state law claims based on collateral estoppel.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawHuman Rights LawCollateral EstoppelWrongful TerminationTortious InterferenceDefamationUnjust EnrichmentQuantum Meruit
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commercial Standard Insurance Company v. Villa

Lonardo Villa filed a workmen's compensation case against Commercial Standard Insurance Company seeking benefits for total and permanent incapacity resulting from an employment injury. The jury found in favor of Villa, a decision upheld by the trial court, prompting an appeal from the insurance company. Appellant Commercial Standard raised multiple points of error, primarily challenging the method of calculating Villa's wage rate and the finding of permanent disability. The appellate court examined the sufficiency of evidence regarding the wage rate determination under Article 8309 and the medical testimony supporting Villa's permanent incapacity. Concluding that all points raised by the appellant lacked merit, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workmen's CompensationTotal Permanent IncapacityWage Rate CalculationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityMedical EvidenceProcedural ErrorStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilk v. Standard Fire Insurance Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Wilk & Flint, attorneys representing beneficiaries in a workers' compensation death benefits claim, against The Standard Fire Insurance Company. Wilk & Flint challenged the trial court's award of attorney's fees in periodic payments, arguing that Texas Workers' Compensation statute, article 8306, section 8(d), mandates a lump sum payment when the insurance company disputes liability. The Standard Fire Insurance Company had initially disputed liability, leading to the lawsuit, before seeking to make periodic payments for both benefits and attorney's fees. The appellate court agreed with Wilk & Flint, reversing the portion of the trial court's judgment regarding periodic attorney's fees and remanding for a lump sum determination, while affirming the rest of the judgment.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesLump Sum PaymentPeriodic PaymentsStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate ReviewInsurance LiabilityDeath BenefitsRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Standard Register Co.

This retaliatory discharge case revolves around Ms. Anderson, an employee who was terminated by her employer, Standard, due to a facially neutral absence control policy after sustaining a work-related injury and being absent for over 26 weeks. Ms. Anderson subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging that her discharge was in retaliation for asserting a workers' compensation claim. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding no direct evidence of retaliatory intent and upholding the neutral absence policy. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed these judgments, concluding that the employer's policy did not constitute a 'device' to circumvent workers' compensation obligations and that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between her claim and her termination.

Retaliatory dischargeAbsence control policyWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentCausal relationshipEmployment-at-willPublic policy exceptionSubstantial factor testNeutral policyDisability benefits
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 2,170 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