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. WR No. 20,644
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Larson, Paul Allen

Paul Larson, acting pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Error/Bill of Review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Larson alleges errors appearing on the face of the record and extrinsic fraud committed by the State in connection with prior Cause Numbers 449008-C, 449008-D, 465007-C, and 465007-D. He specifically claims the State mislabeled a June 12, 2014, answer as 'Original' and intentionally delayed its delivery. Larson seeks a full review of the Habeas Record, an order for the Harris County District Clerk's Office to provide complete files, and for the Court to grant his Bill of Review and the relief originally sought in his Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Writ of Mandamus.

Writ of ErrorBill of ReviewHabeas CorpusMandamusFraudError on RecordExtrinsic FraudTexas Court of Criminal AppealsPro SeSupervised Release
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Total Oilfield Services, Inc. v. Garcia

Jose Alejo Garcia, a Texas resident, was killed in an industrial accident in Oklahoma while working for Total Oilfield Services, a Texas corporation. His survivors received worker's compensation benefits under Oklahoma law and subsequently sued in Texas for exemplary damages under the Texas Wrongful Death Act. The trial court dismissed the action due to Oklahoma's exclusive remedy, but the court of appeals reversed, asserting the extra-territorial effect of the Texas Wrongful Death Act. This court refused the application for writ of error, finding no reversible error in the outcome. However, it disapproved the court of appeals' reasoning that the 'most significant relationship' rule was inapplicable, clarifying that said rule should be applied in such conflict of laws cases.

Wrongful Death ActConflict of LawsMost Significant Relationship TestWorker's CompensationExtra-territorial EffectWrit of ErrorExemplary DamagesSubject Matter JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationPer Curiam
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Hart

Doyle Hart was convicted of aggravated rape and incest. His stepdaughter, B.J., later recanted her trial testimony, leading Hart to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis for a new trial based on this newly discovered evidence. The trial court denied the petition, citing B.J.'s reassertion of her original testimony while in a mental health facility and the results of an unfavorable polygraph examination taken by Hart. The Court of Criminal Appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new evidentiary hearing. The appellate court found that the trial court improperly considered evidence outside the record, specifically B.J.'s post-hearing statements and the polygraph results, violating principles of judicial procedure and evidence.

Aggravated RapeIncestRecanted TestimonyWrit of Error Coram NobisNewly Discovered EvidenceJudicial MisconductEvidence Outside RecordPolygraph ExaminationCredibility AssessmentChild Abuse
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texaco, Inc. v. Central Power & Light Co.

Texaco appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas by writ of error after the court of appeals dismissed its appeal, ruling Texaco had participated sufficiently in the trial to be barred from this method of appeal. In the initial trial, Texaco had settled with the plaintiffs, Eduardo and Hilda Jean Espinoza, but was later found liable for indemnity to Central Power and Light Company (CP&L) based on a tariff. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, clarifying that 'actual trial' participation, specifically involvement in the evidentiary stage or 'decision-making event' that adjudicates rights, is required to preclude a writ of error appeal. Since Texaco did not participate in the jury trial that established CP&L's liability to the Espinozas or the subsequent indemnity judgment against Texaco, the Supreme Court held Texaco was entitled to appeal by writ of error. The case was remanded for consideration of Texaco’s points of error.

Writ of ErrorAppellate ProcedureTexas Rules of Appellate ProcedureActual Trial ParticipationIndemnity ClaimSettlement AgreementJudicial NoticeNonparticipation RuleJury TrialSupreme Court of Texas
References
18
Case No. 13-22-00389-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2023

In Re Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy Inc., Xcel Energy Services, Inc. v. the State of Texas

The relators, Southwestern Public Service Company, Xcel Energy Inc., and Xcel Energy Services, Inc., petitioned for a writ of mandamus, challenging a trial court's second issuance of "death penalty sanctions" against them. The sanctions stemmed from alleged discovery abuses in a personal injury lawsuit filed by Eduardo Munoz Jr. and his family (real parties) following an electrical arc incident. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court's second sanction order contained the same fundamental errors as the first, failing to comply with precedent regarding the severity of sanctions, resting on insufficient evidentiary record, and not demonstrating the inadequacy of lesser sanctions. Specifically, the order improperly precluded the application of proportionate responsibility rules, which constitutes an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the Court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to withdraw its sanction order and proceed with further litigation.

MandamusDeath Penalty SanctionsDiscovery AbuseProportionate ResponsibilityTexas Court of AppealsTrial Court ErrorCivil ProcedureWrit of MandamusEvidentiary HearingElectrical Arc Incident
References
63
Case No. 03-94-00668-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 1995

Alicia Moreno v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Alicia Moreno appealed an adverse default judgment by writ of error against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The appeal challenged a district court's default judgment that set aside a workers' compensation award previously granted to Moreno by the Workers' Compensation Commission. Moreno raised several points of error, including non-compliance of the citation with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 16 (regarding endorsement of receipt date/hour), the return's failure to show server authorization, a discrepancy between the service address and the citation's address, and non-compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 239a concerning notice of default judgment. The appellate court affirmed the default judgment, ruling that minor citation errors were not grounds for reversal, official signatures on returns fulfilled authorization requirements, and address discrepancies did not void service. It also held that Rule 239a violations should be challenged in a bill of review, not a writ of error, and clarified that due process concerns under *Peralta* apply only where a defendant was not served with process.

Default JudgmentWrit of ErrorWorkers' CompensationProcedural RulesService of ProcessCitationDue ProcessBill of ReviewAppellate ReviewTexas Rules of Civil Procedure
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaramillo v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

This is an appeal by writ of error challenging a post-answer default judgment in a worker's compensation case. The Industrial Accident Board ruled in favor of the Appellant, but the Appellee filed a suit to set aside the award. The Appellant failed to appear for trial, resulting in a default judgment for the Appellee. On appeal, the court considered whether an error was apparent on the face of the record, a requirement for a writ of error. The Appellant failed to provide a statement of facts or evidence of its absence, leading the court to presume the regularity of the trial court's judgment. Additionally, the Appellant's complaint regarding a motion for continuance was overruled due to lack of record support. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

worker's compensationdefault judgmentwrit of errorappellate procedurestatement of factsmotion for continuanceTexas lawIndustrial Accident Boardappealevidence
References
12
Case No. ADJ7622191 ADJ10153210 ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258)
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

CATHERINA DE LAY vs. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, DIGNITY HEALTH, TRAVELERS

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision from July 19, 2019. The error resulted in the misidentification of adjudication numbers in the original decision. The Board is correcting this clerical error without granting reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The amended caption now accurately includes all relevant case numbers: ADJ7622191, ADJ10153210, ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), and ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical errorOpinion and DecisionReconsiderationadjudication numbersSuperior Nationalliquidationpermissibly self-insuredCIGADignity Health
References
0
Case No. ADJ9105445
Regular
Dec 01, 2009

CHARLES STUMPH vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case concerns a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) opinion. The error involved misidentifying a defendant in the initial sentence of a paragraph. The WCAB has issued an order correcting this clerical error to accurately reflect that the applicant, Charles Stumph, entered into a compromise and release agreement with the County of Orange Sheriff's Department. This correction was made without granting further reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The Board's original decision rescinded the administrative law judge's findings and approved the compromise and release agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorReconsiderationLabor Code Section 132aFindings of Fact and OrderCompromise and ReleaseWCJWCAB Rule 10882Labor Code Section 5001Labor Code Section 5002
References
2
Case No. ADJ1312021
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

GRICELDA AREVALOS vs. PERSONNEL PLUS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order corrects clerical errors in a prior decision regarding Gricelda Arevalos's case. The errors involved an incorrect case number in the caption and an extra space within the case number later in the document. The Board is correcting these errors to reflect the accurate case number ADJ1312021 without further proceedings. This amendment ensures the official record is accurate.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCLERICAL ERRORSORDER CORRECTINGPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCASE NUMBER CORRECTIONADJ7430358ADJ0302021ADJ1312021SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGSCONTINGENT PROCEEDINGS
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,153 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