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

Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

This opinion addresses an appeal from nine consolidated asbestos cases where a jury found liability but awarded no past damages to several plaintiffs. The court, HEDGES, Justice, reviewed the proper standard of appellate review for zero damages verdicts, distinguishing between objective and subjective symptoms of injury and adhering to the Pool v. Ford Motor Co. standard. The court upheld the jury's zero past damages awards for most plaintiffs, finding them not against the great weight of the evidence. However, it reversed the trial court's application of the statute of limitations to the Spikes family's claim, remanding it for further proceedings. Additionally, the court sustained the point of error regarding prejudgment interest calculation, ruling that under Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., interest should accrue six months after the last day of asbestos exposure, rather than six months after the lawsuit filing date, and remanded the Burt and Friley cases for recalculation. The court also addressed, but did not rule on the merits of, an expert testimony admissibility challenge due to procedural errors by the plaintiffs.

Asbestos litigationzero damagesprejudgment interestappellate reviewcomparative negligencestrict liabilitylatent diseasestatute of limitationsexpert testimonymedical examination
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1985

In Re Continental Airlines Corp.

The case concerns Continental Airlines' motion to disallow or estimate at zero value the contract rejection damages claimed by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) following Continental's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Continental had rejected its collective bargaining agreement with ALPA, and ALPA subsequently filed a $408 million claim for damages. The court asserted jurisdiction over the claim, rejecting ALPA's argument for deferral to a specialized tribunal. The court ultimately concluded that ALPA's claim for lost future wages lacked merit because the collective bargaining agreement did not guarantee employment and Continental would have ceased operations regardless. Additionally, the court found ALPA's damage calculations flawed as they extended beyond the contract's termination date. Consequently, the court disallowed ALPA's claim entirely and estimated its value at zero.

BankruptcyContract RejectionCollective Bargaining AgreementAirline IndustryLabor LawDamages EstimationBankruptcy JurisdictionArbitration DeferralRailway Labor ActChapter 11 Reorganization
References
90
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eastman v. Baker Recovery Services (In Re Eastman)

Shane E. Eastman, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding against Baker Recovery Services and the Law Offices of Juana Trejo. He sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and damages, alleging that the defendants violated his discharge injunction, the FDCPA, TDCA, DTPA, and committed intentional infliction of emotional distress by attempting to collect a discharged debt. The court ruled that the defendants indeed violated the Bankruptcy Code's discharge injunction, the FDCPA, and the TDCA, particularly through their actions in filing a lawsuit in California. Consequently, the court granted Eastman's request for an injunction, awarded statutory damages of $1,000, and ordered the defendants to pay attorney's fees and costs. However, Eastman's claims for actual damages were denied due to insufficient proof, and his DTPA and tort claims were dismissed, the former for lack of standing and the latter for failing to meet the required intent threshold.

Bankruptcy DischargeDebt CollectionFDCPA ViolationTDCA ViolationDischarge InjunctionStatutory DamagesAttorneys' FeesDeclaratory JudgmentDefault JudgmentAdversary Proceeding
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roach v. Dixie Gas Co.

Plaintiffs Charles and Joyce Roach filed a lawsuit against Dixie Gas Company and its owner, Benjamin Thomas Williams, Jr., alleging physical and psychological injuries from a propane gas explosion. The defendants admitted liability for property damage but disputed personal injuries and causation, claiming the plaintiffs were not present at the explosion site. After a jury trial, the jury found the explosion did not cause personal injuries and awarded zero damages. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the trial court's decisions regarding Rule 35 medical examinations, admissibility of defense expert testimony, and deposition testimony, as well as the jury's verdict. The Court affirmed the trial court's rulings and the jury's verdict, finding ample material evidence to support the finding of zero damages.

NegligencePropane ExplosionPersonal Injury ClaimPsychological InjuriesPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Hearing LossTinnitusMedical Expert TestimonyRule 35 ExaminationExpert Witness Admissibility
References
32
Case No. 09-19-00250-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2021

Melinda Herrera v. Wendell Legacy Homes, LLC

Melinda Herrera appealed a trial court's take-nothing judgment on her claims against Wendell Legacy Homes, LLC. Herrera had filed counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud in a real estate transaction, alleging that Wendell Homes failed to timely close on a home, return earnest money, and made false representations. Wendell Homes had also sought damages under promissory estoppel and quantum meruit for costs incurred in making ADA modifications requested by Herrera. The jury found that Wendell Homes breached the contract and committed fraud by false promise, but awarded Herrera zero damages and zero attorney's fees. The jury also found that Herrera promised to pay for ADA modifications, which Wendell Homes relied upon, but awarded Wendell Homes zero for this claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that some evidence supported the jury's findings of zero damages for Herrera's claims, particularly given evidence that the $50,000 paid by Herrera was used for modifications and their reversal. The court also upheld the zero attorney's fees, ruling that Herrera's attorney's affidavit was conclusory and that Herrera was not a 'prevailing party' as she received no meaningful judicial relief.

Real Estate FraudBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelQuantum MeruitDamagesAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictTake-Nothing JudgmentTexas Law
References
40
Case No. W2010-01496-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2011

Charles Roach and Joyce Roach v. Dixie Gas Company Ben Thomas Williams, Jr., Individually and as Owner and Manager of Dixie Gas Company Semstream, L.P. Santie Wholesale Oil Company, A Division of Blue Rhino Reliable Propane and John Does 1 through 10

Charles and Joyce Roach sued Dixie Gas Company and Benjamin Thomas Williams, Jr. for damages resulting from a propane explosion. The Roaches claimed numerous physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD, depression, hearing loss, and a speech disorder. While defendants admitted liability for property damage, they disputed causation for personal injuries, arguing the Roaches were not at the scene during the explosion. After a jury trial awarded zero damages, the Roaches appealed, challenging the admissibility of medical examinations, expert testimony, and deposition testimony, and the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the Rule 35 examinations or the admissibility of expert testimony, and concluded that material evidence supported the jury's verdict of zero damages.

Propane ExplosionPersonal InjuryEmotional DistressPTSDDepressionHearing LossSpeech DisorderMedical Expert TestimonyRule 35 ExaminationJury Verdict
References
38
Case No. 13-04-358-CV, 13-04-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Montemayor v. Ortiz

This consolidated appeal involves a declaratory judgment action and counterclaims for damages. Appellants G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham Jr. sought to collect a 1990 judgment against Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez and Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada by claiming Becky Ortiz's business, Schor's, was community property subject to levy. They obtained an ex parte receivership, prompting Ortiz to file counterclaims for wrongful conduct including abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgments for Ortiz, ruling the 1990 debt was contractual and Schor's was her special community property, not liable for Celada's debt. A jury awarded Ortiz actual and punitive damages on her counterclaims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgments in favor of Ortiz, but reversed and rendered the judgment for damages, finding no legal sufficiency of evidence for any of Ortiz's tort claims, thereby also precluding punitive damages and mental anguish awards.

Declaratory JudgmentEx Parte ReceivershipCommunity PropertySpecial Community PropertyTortious ConductAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. McKinney

Clifford Ray McKinney, an escort for oversized loads, suffered a traumatic leg amputation after a low-hanging telephone line owned by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Bell) snagged on an oversized truck being escorted for Xerxes Corporation. A jury found Bell 75% negligent, Xerxes 15% negligent, and McKinney 10% negligent, awarding McKinney 75% of total damages. Bell appealed, challenging findings of negligence and proximate cause, while McKinney cross-appealed for 90% of damages, citing joint and several liability. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Bell had constructive notice of the defective line due to inadequate inspection practices. The court also ruled that McKinney's nonsuit of Xerxes constituted a settlement, releasing Xerxes from additional liability and validating the 75% damage apportionment.

NegligencePremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeProximate CauseComparative NegligenceJoint and Several LiabilitySettlementWorkers' CompensationTelephone LinesOverhead Obstruction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamur Productions Corp. v. Quill

This case involves multiple actions seeking damages from labor unions following the 1966 New York City transit strike. The defendants, referred to as "the Unions," moved for dismissal of all complaints due to legal insufficiency. Plaintiffs asserted various claims, including intentional violation of the Condon-Wadlin Act and a court injunction, prima facie tort, and breaches of human rights and contractual theories. The court granted the defendants' motions, ruling that the Condon-Wadlin Act does not create a private right of action for damages. It further determined that the alleged damages were too remote and indirect to sustain claims of prima facie tort, and that claims based on human rights declarations, stock diminution, and contract were without merit. The decision emphasizes that remedies for the general public regarding public employee strikes must originate from legislative action rather than judicial adjudication.

Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor UnionsCondon-Wadlin ActPrima Facie TortStatutory InterpretationCivil LiabilityRemote DamagesInjunction ViolationCollective Bargaining
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 13,715 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