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. 2-06-016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2007

Shioleno Industries, Inc. AND Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington v. Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington AND Shioleno Industries, Inc.

Shioleno Industries, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC d/b/a Medical Center of Arlington (the Hospital). The case originated from the Hospital's alleged failure to disclose an employee's positive drug and alcohol test results to Shioleno after an on-the-job injury. Shioleno contended that this omission led to increased workers' compensation premiums and expenses in unemployment benefit disputes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Shioleno failed to provide a valid authorization for the disclosure of medical information. Consequently, the Hospital had no legal duty to disclose the results and could not be held liable for negligence, breach of contract, or Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations.

Summary JudgmentMedical RecordsDisclosure AuthorizationHealth & Safety CodeNegligenceBreach of ContractDTPADrug TestingAlcohol TestingEmployer Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKelvy v. Columbia Medical Center of McKinney Subsidiary, L.P.

Jeannie McKelvy, an employee of Columbia Medical Center of McKinney Subsidiary, L.P., d/b/a McKinney Medical Center (the Hospital), sustained injuries from a slip and fall at work due to leaking lab equipment. She filed a negligence claim against the Hospital, which is a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance. The Hospital moved to dismiss her claims under the Texas Medical Liability Act (Chapter 74) for failure to file an expert report, arguing her claims were health care liability claims. The trial court granted the Hospital's motion. On appeal, McKelvy argued her claims were ordinary negligence claims, not subject to Chapter 74. The appellate court reviewed the definition of a 'health care liability claim' under section 74.001(a)(13) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The court concluded that McKelvy's claims, stemming from a hazardous floor caused by leaking lab equipment, did not have an indirect relationship to the provision of health care and did not involve a patient-physician relationship. Therefore, her claims were not health care liability claims, and the trial court erred in dismissing her case. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

References
5
Case No. 01-14-00892-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2014

Adelaida Salazar Bautista A/K/A Adelaida Alvarado, Individually and as Next Friend of Maria Jennifer Aide A/K/A Maria Jennifer Alvarado, A. A., A. A., I. S. A., M. A., and E. A., Minors And Irineo Alvarado and Maria Ana Moctezuma v. Trinidad Drilling Limited

This is an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a special appearance by Trinidad Drilling Ltd., a Canadian corporation, in a wrongful death lawsuit. Appellants Adelaida Salazar Bautista et al. sued Trinidad Drilling Ltd. for the death of Nabor Alvarado, alleging negligence and attempting to establish specific personal jurisdiction by claiming the parent company controlled and oversaw the subsidiary's drilling operations in Texas. The trial court, Hon. Brent Gamble presiding in the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris County, granted Trinidad Drilling Ltd.'s special appearance on October 13, 2014. Trinidad Drilling Ltd. argues that it lacks sufficient contacts with Texas for specific or general personal jurisdiction, maintaining that it is a separate entity from the subsidiary, Trinidad LP, and therefore its corporate independence should be respected. The appellee requests the Court to affirm the trial court's judgment.

Personal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingParent-Subsidiary RelationshipWrongful DeathNegligenceSpecial AppearanceInterlocutory AppealTexas Law
References
8
Case No. 10-99-190-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1999

City of Ennis, a Self-Insured Governmental Entity v. William J. Bryant

William J. Bryant filed a lawsuit against the City of Ennis seeking worker's compensation disability benefits due to a heart attack sustained during his employment as a police officer. A jury found in favor of Bryant, prompting the City of Ennis to appeal the decision. Prior to a ruling on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement and filed an 'Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Cause'. In response, the Tenth Court of Appeals, citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) and 43.2(e), granted the motion, vacated the trial court's judgment, and dismissed the case, with costs taxed against the party incurring them.

Worker's CompensationDisability BenefitsHeart AttackPolice OfficerAppellate ReviewSettlement AgreementDismissal of AppealVacated JudgmentSelf-Insured EmployerGovernmental Entity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1987

Reska v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee of Bethlehem Steel, initiated an action to recover reduced pension benefits. His monthly pension was decreased after the defendants, Bethlehem Steel Corporation and Subsidiary Companies, offset a Workers' Compensation Board award for a 20% partial hearing loss against his pension. The plaintiff argued this reduction violated the company's Plan provisions and ERISA's non-forfeiture clause. The court, however, found that the plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies and that the Plan's language allowed for such offsets for partial loss, explicitly excepting only total loss of a bodily member. Citing Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., the court concluded that ERISA permits such offsets, even for workers' compensation awards not solely for wage replacement, as it aligns with Congress's intent to provide cost-cutting avenues for employers. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Pension BenefitsERISAWorkers' Compensation OffsetNon-forfeiture ProvisionSummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesDisability PaymentsBethlehem Steel Pension PlanPartial Hearing LossEmployee Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malena v. Victoria's Secret Direct, LLC

Fredda Malena, a former executive assistant, brought claims against Victoria's Secret entities and Ann O’Malley for pregnancy discrimination and retaliation under federal and New York state/city laws. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The court, led by District Judge J. Paul Oetken, granted the motions in part and denied them in part. O’Malley was found not liable for FMLA retaliation and direct NYSHRL discrimination but may be liable for NYSHRL retaliation, NYCHRL claims, and aiding and abetting. The Corporate Defendants' summary judgment motion was denied for discrimination and FMLA/NYSHRL/NYCHRL retaliation, but granted for aiding and abetting and the spread-of-hours claim.

Pregnancy DiscriminationFMLA RetaliationNYSHRL DiscriminationNYCHRL DiscriminationSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityIndividual LiabilityMixed MotiveReduction in ForceRetaliation Claims
References
58
Case No. 08-06-00058-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2007

in the Matter of Raul G. Sanchez, Twilah Sanchez v. State Office of Risk Management, a Self-Insured Governmental Entity

This is an appeal from a no-evidence summary judgment granted in favor of the State Office of Risk Management (SORM). Twilah Sanchez sought workers' compensation benefits after her husband, Raul Sanchez, died following a work-related single-car accident. SORM denied the claim, asserting Raul was intoxicated at the time of the accident based on blood alcohol tests taken hours after the incident. Sanchez presented expert testimony challenging the reliability of retrograde extrapolation, but her expert could not definitively state that Raul was not intoxicated. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Sanchez failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact that her husband's blood alcohol content was less than 0.08 at the time of the accident.

Intoxication DefenseSummary JudgmentNo-evidence Summary JudgmentRetrograde ExtrapolationBlood Alcohol Content (BAC)Expert TestimonyBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentDeath Benefits
References
9
Case No. 04-24-00606-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2025

Michael Shalit D/B/A Kimberly Investment Company, Lynzara-Austin Real Estate Management, LLC, as General Partner of Kendall County Development Company, L.P., and as General Partner of Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Robyn Real Estate Investments, L.P., Robyn Utility Investments, L.P., and Robyn Utility Investments Management, LLC v. Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Kendall County Development Company, L.P., Kendall County Utility Company, Inc., Tapatio Springs Utility Holdings, L.P., and Tapatio Springs Hospitality Holdings, L.P.

This memorandum opinion addresses an appeal from a summary judgment granted by the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas. Appellants, collectively known as the Shalit Entities, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Appellees, the Tapatio Entities, which barred the Shalit Entities' counter-claims due to the four-year statute of limitations. The Shalit Entities' claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel, arose from a soured business partnership. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the Shalit Entities failed to sufficiently plead acknowledgment of debt to defeat the limitations defense. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that special exceptions were a prerequisite to summary judgment on limitations grounds and affirmed the severance of claims.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractStatutory FraudDeclaratory ReliefBusiness Partnership DisputeReal Estate VentureAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Case No. 01-15-00877-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2016

in Re CVR Energy, Inc., CVR Partners, LP, CVR Refining, LP, Gary-Williams Energy Company, LLC

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus by CVR Energy, Inc., and its related entities (Relators) to compel a trial court to allow them to designate Wynnewood Refining Company, LLC, as a responsible third party in a wrongful death suit. Wynnewood was a former co-defendant and a wholly-owned subsidiary of one of the relators, whom the plaintiffs had nonsuited less than 60 days before trial, after the statute of limitations had run. The trial court denied CVR's subsequent motion to designate Wynnewood. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion, concluding that CVR had no obligation to disclose Wynnewood as a responsible third party while it was a co-defendant and that the motion to designate was timely filed after the nonsuit. Consequently, the Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to vacate its order and allow the designation.

MandamusResponsible Third PartyProportionate ResponsibilityWrongful DeathNonsuitStatute of LimitationsTrial Court DiscretionTexas Civil ProcedureDiscovery ObligationsAppellate Remedy
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liquidation Trust v. Daimler AG (In Re Old Carco LLC)

This opinion addresses the motion by Daimler AG and its subsidiaries (the "Daimler Entities") to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed by the Liquidation Trust of Old CarCo LLC. The Trust's complaint alleges that Daimler orchestrated fraudulent conveyances by stripping assets from CarCo through a complex restructuring prior to selling a controlling interest to Cerberus Capital Management LP. Chief Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez concludes that the restructuring and subsequent sale constituted a single integrated transaction, and the complaint failed to adequately account for all value received by CarCo. Consequently, the court dismisses certain constructive fraud claims (Counts I, II, III, IX, X) without prejudice, allowing for repleading to clarify consideration and insolvency, while dismissing intentional fraud claims (Counts V, VI) and one constructive fraud claim (Count IV) with prejudice due to insufficient particularized facts.

Fraudulent ConveyanceMotion to DismissBankruptcy Adversary ProceedingAsset StrippingCorporate RestructuringIntegrated Transaction DoctrineConsideration ValuationInsolvency AnalysisPleading StandardsInsider Preference
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 925 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