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

Fillyaw v. City of Beaumont

Plaintiff Cynthia Fillyaw appealed a "take nothing judgment" in her workers' compensation claim against her employer, the self-insured City of Beaumont. She alleged a back injury from being startled by a snake while working as a water meter reader on October 29, 1975. Despite receiving some compensation benefits and examinations by an orthopedist and family physician, a jury found that her injury was not the "producing cause of some incapacity." Medical evidence presented by Dr. Bessell, an orthopedist, and Dr. Thomas, a family physician, largely pointed to subjective symptoms and no objective findings for disability, though a congenital anomaly was noted. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving the producing cause of her incapacity.

Workers' CompensationBack InjurySubjective SymptomsObjective FindingsJury VerdictProducing CauseAppealMedical EvidenceCongenital AnomalySelf-Insured Employer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cearley v. Cross Timbers Production Co.

Robert Cearley, an employee under the supervision of Cross Timbers, sustained a personal injury in January 1988 while working on a Cross Timbers oil and gas lease. He claimed Cross Timbers was negligent for not providing a ladder. This appeal concerns a take-nothing summary judgment granted to Cross Timbers, which argued the borrowed servant doctrine applied. The court examined whether Cearley was a regular employee of Crown Central or a borrowed servant of Cross Timbers at the time of the accident. The summary judgment was affirmed, as Cearley's pleading that Cross Timbers controlled his work constituted a judicial admission, establishing him as a borrowed servant under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, thereby insulating Cross Timbers from liability.

Borrowed Servant DoctrineSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryTexas Workers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityControl TestJudicial AdmissionOil and Gas LeaseAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lemaire v. Davis

Harry Lemaire appealed a take-nothing judgment against him, which was rendered in favor of Don J. Davis, Golden Gate, Inc., NuCorp, Inc., Cage, Hill & Niehaus, L.L.P., Ronald R. Niehaus, Hal T. Thorne, and Thorne & Thorne, Inc. Lemaire sought damages for various causes of action associated with the sale of his interest in a limited partnership, including legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. The jury found that Lemaire had released the appellees from his claims and that no attorney-client relationship existed between Lemaire and the Niehaus appellees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting Lemaire's arguments concerning jury instructions on consideration, the definition of an attorney-client relationship, and the denial of a constructive trust.

Appellate ProcedureContract LawReleasesJury InstructionsAttorney-Client RelationshipFiduciary DutyFraud ClaimsConstructive TrustBusiness LitigationLimited Partnership
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tarango v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co.

This opinion addresses an appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment that dismissed a bad faith insurance claim denial suit due to the two-year statute of limitations. The central legal question revolves around the retroactive application of a change in the interpretation of the statute of limitations. The Appellant argued against retroactivity, citing fairness and policy. The court analyzed prior rulings, particularly Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Richards, and disagreed with the Houston Court of Appeals' assertion of being strictly bound by general retroactivity rules. Ultimately, the court interpreted the Supreme Court's "writ denied" notation in Richards as an implicit confirmation that the general rule of retroactive application for changes in limitation interpretations should apply to all pending cases. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

bad faith insurancestatute of limitationsretroactive applicationsummary judgmentappellate lawjudicial interpretationinsurance claim denialTexas lawlegal precedentwrit denied
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Gulf Insurance Group

Clem Cecil Martin appealed a take-nothing judgment following a jury verdict in his worker's compensation claim against Gulf Insurance Company. Martin claimed a December 10, 1985, injury to his right testicle caused, accelerated, or aggravated a cancerous condition. Gulf argued the cancer pre-existed the injury and its spread was natural. The jury found an injury occurred, requiring medical care, but it was not the producing cause of any permanent or temporary incapacity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, resolving apparent conflicts in the jury's findings and concluding that the evidence did not show, as a matter of law, that the injury or a misdiagnosis caused Martin's incapacity.

Worker's CompensationCancerTesticular InjuryMedical CausationProducing CauseJury VerdictExpert TestimonyAppellate ReviewTexas JurisprudencePersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacIas v. Ramos

Rodolfo Macias, a sanitation worker, and the City of Laredo, a self-insured worker's compensation carrier, appealed a take-nothing judgment in a personal injury action. Macias was struck by an automobile, and the jury found his injuries were caused by his own negligence, awarding no damages. Appellants argued the trial court erred in admitting evidence of Macias's collateral benefits, but the appellate court found this error harmless because the jury did not reach the issue of damages. Appellants also challenged the appellee's closing argument and the jury's zero damages finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury's finding of no liability rendered the issue of compensation immaterial.

Personal InjuryNegligenceCollateral Source RuleWorkers' Compensation BenefitsJury ArgumentEvidentiary RulingHarmless ErrorDamagesLiabilitySubrogation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Home Assurance v. Texas Department of Insurance

This case concerns a tax-protest suit initiated by American Home Assurance, Birmingham Fire Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, and The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. They appealed a take-nothing judgment favoring the Texas Department of Insurance and other appellees. The core of the dispute was the constitutionality of the method used to calculate maintenance-tax surcharges for the Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund. Appellants argued the tax was a retroactive direct tax, utilized public funds for private purposes, and violated equal and uniform taxation principles. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, classifying the surcharge as an excise tax for the privilege of doing business, upholding its public purpose, and affirming its equal and uniform application, including a tax credit for the Fund as an insurer of last resort.

Tax Protest SuitInsurance CodeConstitutional LawRetroactive TaxationPublic Purpose DoctrineEqual and Uniform TaxationFranchise TaxWorkers' Compensation FundAdministrative LawStatutory Interpretation
References
0
Case No. ADJ9122601 ADJ9122724
Regular
Mar 08, 2017

WENDY SHALVOY vs. WARNER BROTHERS HOME ENTERTAINMNET, INC.

The applicant claimed her employer violated Labor Code section 132a by withholding temporary disability benefits, which she believed led to differential treatment in a layoff. The WCJ initially issued a "take nothing" order on her entire application. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to correct a clerical error, finding the WCJ inadvertently applied the "take nothing" order to the wrong part of the applicant's claim. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant failed to prove a violation of section 132a, amending the order to specify she takes nothing regarding her petition for enhanced benefits under that section.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132aPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and OrdersAdministrative Law JudgeTemporary Total DisabilitySeverance PackageDifferential TreatmentClerical ErrorPetition for Enhanced Benefits
References
1
Case No. 02-09-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

Catherine Wilson and William D. Wilson v. Siavash Tavakoli, D.D.S.

Catherine and William D. Wilson appealed a take-nothing judgment from the trial court concerning their claims against former dentist Siavash Tavakoli. A jury had found Tavakoli committed fraud against Catherine and awarded $3,000 in exemplary damages, but no question on actual damages for fraud was submitted or found. The trial court subsequently granted Tavakoli’s motion for a take-nothing judgment, asserting that an award of actual damages is required to support exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.004. On appeal, the Wilsons contended the trial court erred by limiting the jury's consideration of fraud and by rendering the take-nothing judgment. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Wilsons failed to demonstrate harm from the limited fraud question and that, without an award of actual damages, the exemplary damages could not be sustained.

Dental MalpracticeFraudExemplary DamagesActual DamagesTake-Nothing JudgmentJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewHarmless ErrorTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
15
Case No. 14-07-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2008

Sonic Systems International, Inc. v. Randy Croix, Eddie Croix Insurance Agency, Inc., and Texas Mutual Insurance Company F/K/A Texas Worker's Compensation Insurance Fund

Appellant, Sonic Systems International, Inc. (Sonic), sued appellee, Texas Mutual Insurance Company f/k/a Texas Worker=s Compensation Insurance Fund (TMI), based on TMI=s denial of insurance coverage relative to a work-related injury sustained by a Sonic employee. Sonic also sued appellees, Randy Croix and Eddie Croix Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively the Croix Parties), based on their alleged failure to properly procure insurance to cover the employee=s claims. The trial court granted separate motions for summary judgment filed by TMI and the Croix Parties. The trial court rendered a final judgment that Sonic take nothing from all appellees. Sonic presents four appellate issues, challenging both summary judgments. The appellate court reverses the portions of the judgment ordering that Sonic take nothing on all its contractual and extra-contractual causes of action against TMI to the extent they are based on TMI=s denial of the claim for Texas workers= compensation benefits at issue in this suit. It affirms the portions of the judgment ordering that Sonic take nothing on all its contractual and extra-contractual causes of action to the extent they are not based on TMI=s denial of the Texas workers= compensation claim. It also affirms the summary judgment on Sonic=s request for declaratory relief and the judgment in favor of the Croix Parties.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployer ClaimsInsurance Agent NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor LawDeceptive Trade Practices ActBad Faith ClaimsOut-of-State Workers' InjuryElection of Remedies
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 1,199 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