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. 2-03-261-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

in the Interest of B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T., Children

This case involves an appeal by a Father and Mother against the trial court's judgment terminating their parental rights to their four children: B.T., M.J.R.B., T.B., and M.T. Both parents asserted claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and challenged the factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the termination. Father also argued that the trial court's termination order was void due to alleged procedural failures, specifically regarding the one-year deadline for trial and the fourteen-day adversary hearing requirement. The Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, reviewed these contentions. The court found no merit in the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, determined that the evidence clearly and convincingly supported the endangerment findings and that termination was in the children's best interest, and concluded that the procedural issues raised did not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment terminating the parental rights of the Father and Mother.

Parental Rights TerminationIneffective Assistance of CounselChild EndangermentBest Interest of the ChildFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessFamily LawTexas Family CodeTemporary Managing Conservator
References
26
Case No. 09-04-347 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2004

in Re Carol Ann Tarver Bullock, Matthew Bullock and C.A.T.B.

The relators, Carol Ann Tarver Bullock, Matthew Bullock, and C.A.T.B., petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel the Honorable Larry Thorne, presiding judge of the 317th District Court, to reinstate an order terminating David Castro's parental rights and an order for Matthew Bullock's adoption of C.A.T.B. The underlying dispute involved a bill of review granted to David Castro, which voided a prior termination of his parental rights and subsequently Matthew Bullock's adoption. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the lower court had jurisdiction to grant the bill of review despite statutory limitations. Citing recent Supreme Court precedents, the court held that the statutory six-month limitation for challenging termination and adoption orders (Texas Family Code Ann. §§ 161.211 & 162.012) is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional prerequisite, and was waived by the relators. Thus, the lower court did not abuse its discretion, and the petition for writ of mandamus was denied.

Parental Rights TerminationAdoption ProceedingsWrit of MandamusSubject Matter JurisdictionBill of ReviewAffirmative DefensesTexas Family LawStatutory LimitationsJudicial DiscretionAppellate Procedure
References
24
Case No. No. 50; No. 51
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2019

John Kuzmich v. 50 Murray Street Acquisition, LLC, William T. West v. B.C.R.E. - 90 West Street, LLC

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether apartments in buildings receiving tax benefits under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 421-g are subject to the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The Court concluded that they are not, reversing the Appellate Division's decisions in two consolidated cases, John Kuzmich, et al. v. 50 Murray Street Acquisition LLC, and William T. West, et al. v. B.C.R.E. - 90 West Street, LLC, et al. The ruling hinged on the interpretation of RPTL 421-g (6), particularly its "notwithstanding" clause, which the Court found unambiguously subjects such units to full rent control, overriding conflicting RSL provisions for luxury deregulation during the benefit period. The Court rejected arguments from the defendants and the dissenting opinion that legislative intent and the lack of an explicit exemption in the RSL for 421-g buildings indicated the applicability of luxury decontrol. This decision ensures that apartments in buildings receiving 421-g benefits remain subject to rent stabilization protections.

Rent Stabilization LawLuxury DeregulationRPTL 421-g benefitsReal Property Tax LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentLower Manhattan Revitalization PlanRent Regulation Reform ActAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
27
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huddleston v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Charles E. Huddleston, who had sustained previous work-related injuries, suffered a subsequent injury. The trial court found him totally and permanently disabled and apportioned liability for the award, with 15% to the employer and its insurance carrier and 85% to the Second Injury Fund, ordering a lump sum payment. The Fund appealed, arguing an incorrect application of T.C.A. § 50-6-208 and challenging the lump-sum award. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of total permanent disability but clarified that T.C.A. § 50-6-208(b)(1)(A) governs the apportionment, making the Fund responsible for 15% and the carrier for 85%. The court also reversed the full lump-sum commutation, remanding the case for a determination of a payment amount consistent with the injured worker’s best interest under T.C.A. § 50-6-229(a).

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundPermanent DisabilitySubsequent InjuryApportionment of LiabilityLump Sum PaymentTennessee Workers' CompensationKentucky Workers' CompensationOut-of-State AwardsStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. M2008-01174-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2009

In Re B.D., R.M.T. & V.F.T.

Mother Regina C. and Father Nicholas T. appealed the Juvenile Court's decision to terminate their parental rights to children B.D., R.M.T., and V.F.T. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Father's parental rights, citing his substantial noncompliance with the permanency plan and the children's best interests. For Mother, while the court reversed the grounds of substantial noncompliance and abandonment by failure to visit, it upheld the termination based on abandonment by failure to provide a suitable home and the persistence of conditions, specifically her involvement in domestic violence and current homelessness. The court concluded that terminating both parents' rights was in the children's best interests, affirming the juvenile court's judgment in part and reversing in part.

Parental Rights TerminationJuvenile LawChild AbusePermanency PlanBest Interests of the ChildAbandonmentSubstantial NoncomplianceDomestic ViolenceAppellate ReviewGuardianship
References
24
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hale v. CNA Insurance

The case addresses whether workers' compensation settlements require judicial approval under T.C.A. § 50-6-208(b) to be considered in apportioning liability between an employer and the Second Injury Fund. Employee Dempsey Wayne Hale sustained multiple injuries, leading to a 100% disability finding by the trial court. The employer appealed the trial court's decision, which did not consider an unapproved 1972 settlement in reducing the employer's liability. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that only judicially approved settlements are applicable under T.C.A. § 50-6-208(b), while unapproved settlements fall under subsection (a) if employer knowledge of the prior injury is established.

Workers' Compensation LawSecond Injury FundSettlement ApprovalStatutory InterpretationT.C.A. § 50-6-208(b)Permanent Total DisabilityApportionment of LiabilityPreexisting DisabilityEmployer LiabilityJudicial Precedent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delashmit v. City of Covington

The Second Injury Fund appealed a trial court's decision holding it liable for 40% of workers' compensation death benefits awarded to Sylvia Delashmit, the widow of deceased police officer John Wayne Delashmit. The trial court had apportioned liability, with 60% to the employer (City of Covington and its insurer) and 40% to the Fund, by interpreting T.C.A. § 50-6-208(b) to include death benefits. The Fund contended that this statute only applies to permanent disability compensation for employees and does not extend to benefits for dependents in death cases. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's decision, holding that T.C.A. § 50-6-208(b) does not encompass death benefits for dependents and that any expansion of its scope would require legislative action.

Second Injury Funddeath benefitsworkers' compensationstatutory interpretationpermanent partial disabilityemployee dependentssovereign immunitylegislative intentTennessee lawemployer liability
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 9,540 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