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

Benjamin v. Traffic Executive Ass'n-Eastern

Plaintiffs, employees of the Eastern Weighing and Inspection Bureau (EWIB), sought protective benefits under the Staggers Act after their employment was terminated due to EWIB ceasing operations. An arbitration board determined that EWIB employees were not 'employees of a rate bureau' and thus not entitled to the benefits. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint in federal court, alleging violations of the Staggers Act, mail fraud, RICO, and common law fraud, and moved for a trial de novo. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the arbitration award should be upheld. The court reviewed the arbitration award under the limited provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), finding no grounds to set it aside. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiffs' motion for a trial de novo, and dismissed the complaint.

Staggers ActArbitration AwardSummary JudgmentRailway Labor ActCollateral EstoppelDue ProcessArticle III CourtsJury TrialRICOAdministrative Procedure Act
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fuentes v. Union de Pasteurizadores de Juarez Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable

This case is an accelerated appeal concerning a temporary injunction. Union de Pasteurizadores de Juarez (UPJ), a Mexican corporation, sued Jorge Zaragosa Fuentes, Rodrigo Mendoza Delagado, and Jose Chaparro Amparan for conversion of financial documents needed for a Mexican tax audit. The trial court issued a temporary injunction compelling the defendants to produce the documents. On appeal, the defendants argued against the injunction, citing statute of limitations, lack of irreparable injury, speculative harm, and clarity issues with the order and bond. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's temporary injunction, ruling that UPJ demonstrated a probable right to recovery and faced irreparable harm, including potential civil and criminal actions in Mexico, if the documents were not provided. The court also found the injunction order sufficiently clear and the bond adequate, dismissing the statute of limitations argument as a merits issue not appropriate for interlocutory review.

Temporary InjunctionConversionAccelerated AppealFinancial RecordsMexican Tax AuditIrreparable HarmProbable Right to RecoveryAbuse of DiscretionStatute of LimitationsRule 683
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

K. R. Playa VI, S. De R.L. De C v. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty De Mexico, S.A. De C v.

This case involves a consolidated appeal over title insurance claims for properties in Mexico. Appellants Citigroup Global Markets Realty Group and K.R. Playa VI challenged a trial court's judgment favoring appellees Stewart Title Guaranty Company and Stewart Title Guaranty de Mexico. The dispute centered on whether an exclusion in the title insurance policies, related to K.R. Playa's knowledge of a Mexican expropriation decree affecting the properties, precluded coverage and influenced the damages award. The jury found K.R. Playa knew of the decree for ten properties and awarded zero damages for the remaining six. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings on K.R. Playa's knowledge and the zero damages, and addressing issues concerning expert testimony and state-law claims.

Title InsuranceReal Estate DisputeProperty ValuationBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingTexas Insurance CodeExpropriation DecreeMexican LawInternational PropertyAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 11-19-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Pedro De La Rosa and Angelina De La Rosa v. Basic Energy Services, L.P., by and Through Its General Partner, Basic Energy Services GP, LLC

Pedro and Angelina De La Rosa appealed a trial court's order granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed by Basic Energy Services, L.P. and Basic Energy Services GP, LLC. The De La Rosas alleged intentional injuries to Pedro during a work-related truck accident and subsequent medical interference, plus Angelina's loss of consortium. The Eleventh Court of Appeals determined that the Appellants' claims fell under the intentional-injury exception to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, thereby establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also clarified that election of remedies is an affirmative defense, not a jurisdictional bar. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Intentional InjuryWorkers Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionExclusive RemedyElection of RemediesTruck AccidentEmployer LiabilityMedical InterferenceLoss of Consortium
References
33
Case No. 03-96-00415-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1997

Workers' Compensation Division, Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Beverly De La Zerda and Rudy De La Zerda

The Workers' Compensation Division, Office of the Attorney General of Texas, appealed a judgment concerning a personal injury suit. Appellee Beverly de la Zerda, a state employee, and Rudy de la Zerda, sued Americlean Concepts after Beverly sustained injuries at work. Following a settlement between the de la Zerdas and Americlean, the trial court issued a final take-nothing judgment. Subsequently, the de la Zerdas moved to allocate the settlement proceeds, a proposal objected to by the Division, which asserted its subrogation interest. The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that the Division's petition to intervene was untimely as the original final judgment had not been set aside.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryJurisdictionInterventionFinal JudgmentSettlement AllocationSubrogationAppellate ProcedureTimelinessLien
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1989

Gaspard v. American Transit Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order and judgment that confirmed a July 19, 1987 arbitrator’s award and a December 28, 1987 master arbitrator’s award. The respondent’s application for a trial de novo was denied, and the petitioner was awarded judgment including principal, interest, attorneys’ fees, and disbursements, totaling $66,443.42. The respondent argued that interest was improperly calculated and that proof of claim was never properly filed, contentions raised for the first time on a motion for reargument which was denied and not appealed. The appellate court found these arguments precluded by the respondent’s failure to raise them in a timely appeal to the master arbitrator and affirmed the lower court's decision.

Arbitrator's AwardTrial De NovoInterest CalculationWorkers' Compensation ClaimsTimeliness of AppealReargumentAppellate ReviewCPLR 7510Master ArbitratorProof of Claim
References
3
Case No. 13-09-00277-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2010

Homero Eduardo Falcon Martinez and Falrey, S.A. De Cv v. Hugo Garcia De Anda, Mineria Y Energia Del Noreste, S.A., Star Fuels Limited, Michael Loughran and Joseph Loughran

This case is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order granting special appearances for the appellees. Appellants, Homero Eduardo Falcon Martinez and Falrey, S.A. de C.V., brought suit against the appellees, alleging various claims stemming from a coal mining operation in Mexico. The appellants contended that the trial court erred in its ruling, arguing that the appellees had failed to negate all jurisdictional bases and that both specific and general personal jurisdiction over them was proper. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the non-resident appellees lacked sufficient contacts with Texas to establish either specific or general personal jurisdiction. The court also found that the appellants did not successfully prove their theories of agency or alter ego to impute contacts to the appellees.

Personal JurisdictionSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsGeneral JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionPurposeful AvailmentAlter Ego TheoryAgency RelationshipBreach of ContractFraud
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez Ex Rel. Sanchez v. Huntsville Independent School District

Pedro Sanchez was expelled by the Huntsville Independent School District (HISD) for possessing firearms and drugs. His mother, Maria Ofelia Sanchez, appealed the expulsion, seeking a pure trial de novo review. The trial court dismissed her action after she declined to amend her pleadings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court addressed whether the appropriate standard of review for school expulsion appeals under Tex.Educ.Code Ann. § 21.3011(e) is a pure trial de novo or a substantial evidence de novo review. It affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the "substantial evidence de novo" standard is applicable and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case or denying a stay.

School ExpulsionDe Novo ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessEducation LawTexasAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionInjunctive ReliefSchool Discipline
References
25
Case No. 08-06-00181-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2008

Jesus Diaz De Leon D/B/A Payless Bail Bonds v. Olie S. Robinson

Mr. Diaz de Leon (Payless Bail Bonds) appealed the denial of a motion for new trial after a default judgment was entered against him in a suit brought by Mr. Robinson. Mr. Robinson sought to cancel a transaction, declare deeds void, and recover damages related to his home, which collateralized a bail bond. Mr. Diaz de Leon's attorney had a scheduling conflict and sent a substitute attorney, who was excused by the trial court, leading to a default judgment. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for new trial, citing the Craddock elements. The court concluded that the failure to appear was not intentional, a meritorious defense was alleged, and granting a new trial would not injure the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for a trial on the merits.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionBail BondCollateralHomesteadQuitclaim DeedWarranty DeedDeed of TrustEviction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.R. Beadel and Co. v. De La Garza

Joe De La Garza was severely injured while operating a forklift, loading pallets of meat into a truck owned by J.R. Beadel & Company, driven by Everett Lemond. Lemond, believing the loading was complete, drove the truck away from the dock while De La Garza was still inside with the forklift, causing him to fall. De La Garza recovered a judgment in a negligence action, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that De La Garza had no duty to anticipate Lemond's negligent actions and that evidence of workers' compensation benefits, which had ceased prior to trial, was properly excluded for impeachment purposes.

NegligenceForklift AccidentProper LookoutContributory NegligenceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEvidence AdmissibilityImpeachmentDuty to AnticipatePersonal InjuryThird-Party Tort-feasor
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 14,760 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