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. 11-04-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2005

Fernando Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing

Fernando Morales, a temporary employee, sued Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing for negligence after sustaining a hand injury at Martin Resources' Odessa facility. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed whether the defendants had sufficiently proven their workers' compensation insurance coverage, a necessary condition for the exclusive remedy provision to apply. The court found that neither Select Professional Staffing nor Martin Resources, Inc. provided adequate evidence of explicit workers' compensation coverage for themselves. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the burden of proof for establishing affirmative defenses like the exclusive remedy provision.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedySummary Judgment ReversalTemporary EmployeesStaff LeasingNegligence ClaimsAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployer LiabilityTexas Labor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Select Insurance Co. v. Boucher

Select Insurance Co. appealed a jury verdict awarding Thomas Earl Boucher workmen's compensation for six and three-fourths years of total incapacity. The defendant contended that the plaintiff suffered only partial disability and requested related issues and instructions, which the trial court refused. The appellate court affirmed this refusal, noting that partial incapacity issues in this context were inferential rebuttal issues, and the requested definition was inadequate. Furthermore, the court found Dr. Belz's psychiatric testimony, based on both personal examination and hearsay, admissible as he was a treating physician. The appellate court concluded that the jury's finding of total incapacity was supported by sufficient evidence, particularly the medical testimony regarding the plaintiff's mental condition following his injury.

Workmen's Compensation AppealTotal IncapacityPartial Incapacity DefenseRule 277 T.R.C.P.Inferential Rebuttal IssuesExpert Witness TestimonyHearsay EvidencePsychiatric EvaluationMental DisabilityEarning Capacity Reduction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2018

Sentry Select Ins. Co. v. Ruiz

This case involves a declaratory judgment action filed by Sentry Select Insurance Company against Rudolph Automotive, LLC, Rudolph Chevrolet, LLC, Christian Ulises Ruiz, Marcelo Flores, and Lynn Crawford. Sentry sought declarations that it had no duty to defend or indemnify these defendants under an insurance policy for an underlying auto accident lawsuit. The underlying lawsuit stemmed from an incident where a Rudolph Mazda employee, Ruiz, hit a co-worker, Villegas, with his vehicle on the dealership premises after an informal social gathering where alcohol was consumed. The court analyzed the Host Liquor Liability coverage and the Employer's Liability exclusion within Sentry's policy. The court declared that Sentry has no duty to defend or indemnify Ruiz, Flores, and Crawford, but does have a duty to defend the Rudolph Entities. The question of Sentry's duty to indemnify the Rudolph Entities was deferred pending the resolution of the underlying lawsuit, and the current case was administratively closed.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentAuto AccidentEmployer LiabilityHost Liquor LiabilityInsurance Policy InterpretationDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyCommercial Garage LiabilityExcess Liability Coverage
References
33
Case No. No. 11-17-00047-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2018

Julie T. Chau v. Select Medical Corporation D/B/A Regency Hospital of Odessa, LLP

Julie T. Chau sued her employer, Select Medical Corporation d/b/a Regency Hospital of Odessa, LLP, alleging discrimination based on race, national origin, and age, along with retaliation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Regency, determining Chau's petition was untimely filed under the statute of limitations. On appeal, Chau contested this ruling, asserting that her filing was timely under the mailbox rule of Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed whether the mailbox rule applied to the Texas Labor Code's limitations period and whether Chau provided sufficient evidence for compliance. The appellate court held that the mailbox rule does apply and found that Chau's attorney's affidavit and attached documents raised a material question of fact regarding the timeliness of the filing. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsMailbox RuleTexas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 5Texas Labor CodeTimeliness of FilingAppellate ReviewEctor County
References
32
Case No. 13-212
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2015

Select Building Systems, Inc. and Tri-Bar Ranch Company, Ltd. v. Robertson Electric, Inc.

This legal document collection details a contract dispute and subsequent litigation concerning the Los Cerritos Hangar project in Uvalde, Texas. The primary parties are Robertson Electric, Inc. (subcontractor/plaintiff) and Select Building Systems, Inc., Tri-Bar Ranch Company, Ltd., G & R Land Company, Inc., and Rodney R. Lewis (defendants). The dispute involves allegations of payment issues, significant project delays, and numerous construction deficiencies, particularly related to roofing, structural components, and electrical wiring. Extensive communications between the parties, including emails and daily/weekly project reports, document the escalating issues, subcontractor terminations, and efforts to assess and rectify defective work. The case also highlights the complexities of managing large-scale construction projects involving multiple contractors and suppliers, culminating in claims for unpaid work and costs for corrective actions.

Contract disputeconstructionpayment disputebreach of contractsubcontractorgeneral contractormechanic's lienconstruction defectschange ordersdelays
References
17
Case No. NO. 01-02-01272-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2004

Deborah Wade, Individually and on Behalf of the Heirs at Law of Daisy Mae SImpson v. the Methodist Hospital and Select Speciality Hospital - Houston, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Deborah Wade, individually and on behalf of Daisy Mae Simpson's heirs, challenging the dismissal of her medical malpractice lawsuit against The Methodist Hospital and Select Specialty Hospital–Houston, Inc. The trial court dismissed the suit due to Wade's failure to provide an expert report as mandated by the Texas Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement Act. Wade argued against the dismissal, claiming the report was unnecessary, the defendants waived their rights, and procedural errors occurred. The Court of Appeals, First District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying Wade's claims, her request for an extension, or her motion to reinstate. The court held that an expert report was required and that the defendants had not waived their right to dismissal.

Medical malpracticeExpert reportDismissalTexas Medical Liability and Insurance Improvement ActCommon law negligenceRes ipsa loquiturWaiverProcedural requisitesExtension of timeReinstatement
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. Gaynor

Raymond Holmes, Jr., a former employee of the Village of Piermont, sued Defendants Thomas Gaynor, Dennis Hardy, and the Village, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Holmes claimed selective prosecution regarding an illegal dumping scheme, termination without a pre-deprivation hearing, and defamation linked to his termination. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. The Court found Holmes failed to present sufficient evidence for his selective prosecution and liberty interest claims, and that his termination, if it occurred, was pursuant to Civil Service Law Section 71, which does not require a pre-termination hearing. Therefore, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the case was dismissed.

Summary JudgmentCivil RightsEqual ProtectionDue ProcessSelective ProsecutionDefamationLiberty InterestIllegal DumpingWorkers' Compensation LeaveCivil Service Law Section 71
References
22
Case No. 2024-06-4392
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2025

Tan, Allan v. Select Specialty Hospital-Nash Select Medical Corporation

Allan Tan, an employee, sought reimbursement for an unauthorized medical bill from Dr. Philip Elizondo and temporary disability benefits from June 10 to July 8, 2024, after injuring his low back at work. The employer, Select Specialty Hospital, contested both requests, arguing it was not liable for an unauthorized doctor’s bill and Mr. Tan was not restricted from work during the period for which benefits were sought, as per his authorized physician, Dr. Robert Lowe. The Court denied both requests, finding Mr. Tan had not met his burden to prove entitlement, as Dr. Lowe had not recommended surgery (a prerequisite for a second opinion under state law) and had released him to full-duty work.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Bill ReimbursementUnauthorized Medical TreatmentSecond Medical OpinionTreating PhysicianFull-Duty ReleaseWork RestrictionsBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. ADJ10110995 (MF)
Regular
Jun 20, 2019

Preston Lee Brown Scott vs. City of Los Angeles

Applicant Preston Lee Brown Scott, previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed multiple documents seeking relief without obtaining the required pre-filing approval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of prior rulings. Consequently, the Board issued an order stating that the submitted documents are not accepted for filing. This order reaffirms the pre-filing requirements for vexatious litigants absent representation by a licensed attorney.

Vexatious LitigantPre-Filing OrderAppeals Board Rule 10782In Pro PerApplication for AdjudicationDeclaration of ReadinessPleadingsPetitionLicensed AttorneyChange in Circumstances
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gayal Realty Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 25

The case involves plaintiffs Dans, a general contractor, and G-ayal, a property owner, who sought an injunction against defendant Local #25 I. B. E. W. to halt picketing at a construction site. The picketing, which commenced on August 5, 1963, alleged that electricians were not working under the union's standard wages and conditions, resulting in a significant work stoppage. The defendant moved for dismissal, citing deficiencies in the complaint, non-compliance with the Civil Practice Act, and federal pre-emption under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that the dispute was "arguably subject" to the NLRB's jurisdiction, thereby pre-empting state judicial action, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' arguments that their businesses did not impact interstate commerce. Ultimately, the plaintiffs were granted permission to withdraw their motion and discontinue the action without prejudice, and the previously issued stay on picketing was vacated.

InjunctionLabor DisputeFederal PreemptionNLRB JurisdictionPicketingCivil Practice ActUnion ActivityInterstate CommerceWithdrawal of MotionMootness
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,988 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