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

Richard v. Reynolds Metal Co.

This is a wrongful death and survival action brought by Gilda Richard and her minor daughter, Kayla Richard, against Reynolds Metals Company. The appellants challenged the trial court's June 2001 summary judgment, citing numerous procedural and substantive errors. These included inadequate discovery responses, improper use of a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the granting of summary judgment on un-urged grounds, and the refusal of their second motion for continuance. The appellate court found that the appellee's second motion for summary judgment failed to address all claims, did not provide the requisite notice, and did not strictly comply with the requirements for a no-evidence motion, thus treating it as a traditional motion. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case.

Wrongful deathSurvival actionSummary judgmentNo-evidence summary judgmentTraditional summary judgmentProcedural errorDiscovery issuesAffirmative defensesLimitationsElection of remedies
References
20
Case No. 03-02-00107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2002

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company/Richard Hafley v. Richard Hafley/Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company

Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company appealed an award of Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs) by the Worker's Compensation Commission to Richard A. Hafley. The district court affirmed the award and granted attorney's fees to Hafley. Hartford argued the Commission improperly calculated Hafley's self-employment income based on net rather than gross income, insufficient evidence supported the award, and Hafley was not entitled to attorney's fees. Hafley cross-appealed, challenging the district court's jurisdiction due to an incorrect county for filing the appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding the venue requirement was not jurisdictional and upholding the Commission's discretion in calculating wages for self-employed claimants and the award of attorney's fees.

Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs)Self-Employment IncomeNet vs. Gross Income CalculationAttorney's Fees AwardJurisdiction and VenueStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DiscretionAppellate ProcedureLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. American National Property & Casualty Co.

Joseph Richards filed a petition for declaratory relief against American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) and other defendants, including Christus Health Southeast Texas d/b/a Christus St. Elizabeth Hospital (St. Elizabeth), challenging the payment terms of a settlement release. Richards sustained injuries in an automobile accident and incurred medical expenses at St. Elizabeth. ANPAC settled Richards' personal injury claim for $20,000. Richards' attorney informed ANPAC that no hospital liens were on file, requesting the full payment to Richards and his attorney. However, ANPAC, after contacting St. Elizabeth and being informed of a lien, issued two checks: one for $11,847.14 to Richards and his attorney, and another for $8,152.86 to Richards and St. Elizabeth. St. Elizabeth filed the lien minutes after the checks were issued. Richards argued the lien was not filed timely and challenged the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that ANPAC acted reasonably in issuing the check to include St. Elizabeth, and that the lien was effectively secured under the Texas Hospital Lien Law, as the money was not "paid" (delivered) before the lien was filed. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying Richards' motion for continuance or motion for new trial.

Hospital Lien LawSummary JudgmentDeclaratory ReliefTexas Property CodeSettlement AgreementAutomobile AccidentMedical ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
14
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00482 [179 AD3d 546]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2020

Matter of Maxine B. v. Richard C.

This case concerns an appeal by Richard C. against an order of protection issued in favor of his mother, Maxine B., by the Family Court of Bronx County. The order was based on a finding that Richard C. committed menacing in the third degree. Richard C. argued that Maxine B. had stated she did not want the order, but the Appellate Division noted that other evidence, including sworn testimony from a social worker and counsel's representations made outside Richard C.'s presence, indicated Maxine B.'s need for protection. The court affirmed the finding that Richard C. intentionally placed Maxine B. in fear of physical injury, resulting in a black eye, and upheld the Family Court's credibility assessments. Other arguments regarding evidence admission, right to counsel, and the social worker's authority were dismissed as unpreserved or without specific prejudice. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the order of protection.

Order of ProtectionMenacing Third DegreeFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionCredibility AssessmentEvidence AdmissibilityRight to CounselFamily OffenseDomestic ViolenceAffirmation
References
3
Case No. 15-24-00052-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2025

Richard M. Young, Jr. A/K/A Richard Young v. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, John Silovsky as Wildlife Division Director of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the State of Texas

This Appellant's Reply Brief concerns an appeal by Richard M. Young, Jr. against the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department (TPWD) challenging the dismissal of his claims. Young, a deer breeder, contests TPWD's interpretation of "wild animal" and its actions related to his breeder deer, ranch, and breeding permits, arguing that they constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property without due process or just compensation. The brief highlights the argument that Young's selectively bred and confined deer are not "wild animals" under state ownership, and that his property interests, including land, business, and permits, are constitutionally protected. Citing recent Supreme Court precedents, Young argues for independent judicial review of agency statutory interpretations and emphasizes TPWD's failure to address his broader property claims. The Appellant seeks a reversal of the dismissal order or, alternatively, an opportunity to replead his expansive claims.

Wildlife ManagementProperty RightsDue ProcessInverse CondemnationJurisdictional PleaStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ProcedureDeer BreedingChronic Wasting Disease (CWD)
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Tunison v. P. C. Richards & Son

This case involves an appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning workers' compensation death benefits. The decedent, an employee of Outlaw Trucking Company, was fatally injured while delivering merchandise for P. C. Richards & Son. The Board found that the decedent was a special employee of P. C. Richards & Son and that his death arose out of and in the course of this special employment, making P. C. Richards & Son liable for death benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of a special employment relationship due to P. C. Richards & Son's control over the decedent's work, and that the death occurred in the course of employment as he was returning truck keys.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmploymentDeath BenefitsEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewControl TestCourse of EmploymentInsurance CarrierTrucking IndustryWorkers' Compensation Board
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richard H. v. Consilvio

Petitioner Richard H., diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, has a history of involuntary commitments and bank robberies. This appeal concerns the Commissioner of Mental Health's application for a retention order in a secure psychiatric facility. A lower court initially ordered his transfer to a nonsecure facility, crediting his testimony and an advisory jury opinion that he was not dangerous. The Appellate Division, upon review, found that the Commissioner had established Richard H. suffers from a "dangerous mental disorder." The court emphasized his history of dangerous behavior, noncompliance with medication, escapes from nonsecure facilities, and delusional beliefs. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order was modified, and Richard H. was ordered to be retained in a secure facility.

Paranoid SchizophreniaInvoluntary CommitmentInsanity AcquitteeDangerous Mental DisorderRetention OrderMental Hygiene LawCriminal Procedure LawMedication NoncomplianceBank RobberyDelusional Beliefs
References
14
Case No. 04-08-00554-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2009

Barbara Jane Irwin v. Mike Irwin, as Representative of the Estate of Richard Lee Irwin

This appeal concerns a summary judgment in favor of the Estate of Richard Lee Irwin against his ex-wife, Barbara Jane Irwin. Richard, an employee of the DEA, had designated Barbara as the primary beneficiary of his FEGLIP life insurance policy, with his sons Mike and John as contingent beneficiaries. After their divorce, Richard updated his will to exclude Barbara but never changed his life insurance beneficiary designation. Upon Richard's death, Barbara received the policy proceeds. Mike, representing Richard's estate, sued Barbara to recover the proceeds, claiming the estate had standing. The trial court granted summary judgment for the estate, imposing a constructive trust on the proceeds. The appellate court reversed and remanded the decision, ruling that the estate lacked standing as it was not a designated beneficiary and life insurance proceeds are nontestamentary assets. The court noted that Mike and John, as contingent beneficiaries, would be the proper plaintiffs.

Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA)Beneficiary DesignationDivorce DecreeEstate StandingConstructive TrustLife Insurance ProceedsSummary Judgment AppealNontestamentary AssetsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Sanctioning of Richard N.

This opinion addresses the appropriate sanction for juror Richard N. who intentionally abandoned a summary jury trial and misled the court about his whereabouts, falsely claiming a 'neurological emergency'. Presided over by Justice Martin E. Ritholtz in Queens County, the court initiated a special proceeding to penalize Richard N. for his misconduct. While civil or criminal contempt charges were considered, the court ultimately utilized its inherent powers to impose a less severe sanction. Richard N. confessed and apologized for his deceptive behavior. The court ordered him to pay a $250 fine and determined that his jury service would not be credited, leaving him eligible for future jury duty.

Juror MisconductContempt of CourtSpecial ProceedingJudicial SanctionInherent Powers of CourtJury Duty AbandonmentDeceptive ConductDue ProcessRight to CounselCivil Contempt
References
38
Case No. 09-05-231 CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2006

Joseph Richards v. American National Property and Casualty Company, Joanie Cummins, Dewey L. Vines, Tina M. Vines, Brenda Vines and Christus Health Southeast Texas D/B/A Christus St. Elizabeth Hospital

Joseph Richards (Appellant) filed a petition for declaratory relief against American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC), Joanie Cummins, Dewey L. Vines, Tina M. Vines, Brenda Vines, and Christus Health Southeast Texas d/b/a Christus St. Elizabeth Hospital (Appellees). Richards sought a determination regarding the defendants' alleged violation of a settlement release agreement by issuing a separate draft payable to him and St. Elizabeth Hospital. The dispute arose from an automobile accident where Richards incurred medical expenses at St. Elizabeth, and ANPAC issued two checks, one to Richards and his attorney, and another to Richards and St. Elizabeth, after being informed of a hospital lien. The trial court granted summary judgment motions in favor of the defendants, which Richards appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ANPAC acted reasonably and the hospital lien was valid.

Settlement AgreementHospital Lien LawTexas Property CodeSummary JudgmentDeclaratory ReliefBreach of ContractMotion for ContinuanceMotion for New TrialAutomobile AccidentMedical Expenses
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 730 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