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

Service Lloyds Insurance Co. v. Cook

This case addresses whether a petitioner appealing an Industrial Accident Board (IAB) award is required to use due diligence in serving citation under former Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307, § 5. The trial judge ruled against the appellant due to a lack of due diligence. The appellate court held that due diligence in serving citation is not a requirement for such appeals. Furthermore, the court found that, even if it were required, the appellant demonstrated diligence. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause remanded.

Workers' Compensation AppealDue DiligenceService of CitationIndustrial Accident BoardStatutory InterpretationTexas Civil ProcedureJurisdictionRemandAppellate Review

References

Case No. CR-007805-25BX

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 16, 2025

People v. Jefferson M.Q.

The case addresses whether the 2025 amendments to Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Law, defining 'due diligence' for discovery, apply to a certificate of compliance filed before the amendments' effective date. The defendant, charged with driving while intoxicated, moved to dismiss the accusatory instrument due to the prosecution's failure to provide Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) attachments as ordered by the court. The court determined that the 2025 amendments are procedural and remedial, thus applying to pending criminal actions regardless of when the certificate of compliance was filed. Applying the 2025 due diligence standard, the court found the People failed to exercise due diligence by making perfunctory efforts, missing statutory deadlines, delaying in requesting ordered material, and failing to explain or correct the lapse. Consequently, the court deemed the People's certificate of compliance invalid and their statement of readiness illusory. As the People exceeded their allotted speedy trial time (92 chargeable days against a 90-day limit), the defendant's motion to dismiss the accusatory instrument was granted.

Discovery ComplianceDue DiligenceCertificate of ComplianceSpeedy TrialStatutory InterpretationRetroactivity of StatutesCriminal Procedure LawIAB AttachmentsMisdemeanor ChargesProsecutorial Misconduct

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co.

In this worker's compensation case, Appellant Leslie T. Holmes appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMIC). Holmes filed suit against TMIC seeking judicial review but failed to exercise due diligence in serving TMIC, leading to an initial dismissal and a lengthy delay even after reinstatement. TMIC raised an affirmative defense of limitations, arguing that Holmes's suit was barred due to lack of diligent service. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that Holmes's prolonged and unexplained delays in effecting service constituted a lack of due diligence as a matter of law, despite the timely filing of the original petition.

Worker's CompensationSummary JudgmentDue DiligenceService of ProcessStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewTexas LawTrial Court JudgmentDismissalReinstatement

References

Case No. 12-02-00378-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 04, 2004

Buddy Kindle v. Wood County Electric Co-Op, Inc., Mr. Jim Dozier, Individually and as an Officer of Wood County Electric Co-Op, Inc., and Harris Line Service

Kindle sued WCEC for trespass, fraud, and tortious interference after WCEC trimmed trees along its power lines on Kindle's property. The trial court granted summary judgment for WCEC, finding Kindle failed to exercise due diligence in serving WCEC, thus running the statute of limitations. Kindle appealed, raising issues regarding due diligence, WCEC's pleading of an affirmative defense, the authority of WCEC's attorney, and an alleged agreement not to pursue the limitations defense. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Kindle lacked due diligence and failed to preserve several of his arguments. The court also found that an unpleaded affirmative defense could serve as the basis for summary judgment when not objected to.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDue DiligenceService of ProcessAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewAttorney RepresentationWaiverTrespassTortious Interference

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Ozuna v. Southwest Bio-Clinical Laboratories

Plaintiff Daisy Ozuna appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against Southwest Bio-Clinical Laboratories for want of prosecution. She contended that the dismissal was an abuse of discretion and that any failure to litigate her case with due diligence was caused by her previous attorneys. The trial court had dismissed the case for both failure to appear at the dismissal hearing and lack of due diligence in prosecution. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the trial court acted within its discretion regarding the lack of diligence. The court also clarified that Rule 165a(3)'s reinstatement provision, applicable to failures to appear, does not apply to dismissals based on a lack of diligent prosecution.

dismissalwant of prosecutionappellate reviewabuse of discretiondue diligenceattorney responsibilityTexas Civil ProcedureRule 165a interpretationreinstatement of caseworkers' compensation claim

References

Case No. 08-10-00003-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 16, 2011

Leslie T. Holmes v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

Leslie T. Holmes appealed the trial court's summary judgment granted in favor of Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMIC) in a worker's compensation case. Holmes contended that he exercised due diligence in serving TMIC, which he argued should have interrupted the statute of limitations. While the appellate court agreed that Holmes's initial suit filing was timely due to a weekend rule, it found an unexplained five-and-a-half-year delay in serving TMIC. This delay constituted a lack of due diligence as a matter of law. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

worker's compensationdue diligencestatute of limitationssummary judgmentservice of processappellate reviewTexas lawcivil procedurelimitations periodjudgment affirmation

References

Case No. 14-06-00762-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 30, 2007

in the Interest of C.L.S

This is an appeal regarding the termination of parental rights of Candace and Adam to their minor daughter, C.L.S. The mother challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's termination findings and the court's refusal of a proposed jury instruction. The father challenged the finding that the petitioning state agency, the Texas Department of Family & Protective Services, exercised due diligence to serve his citation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of the mother's endangering conduct due to drug abuse, housing instability, and criminal history, and concluded that due diligence was exercised in serving the father.

Parental Rights TerminationChild Abuse and NeglectDrug AddictionFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionDue DiligenceTexas Family CodeAppellate ReviewTemporary Managing Conservatorship

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Kindle v. Wood County Electric Co-Op, Inc.

Kindle sued WCEC for trespass, fraud, and tortious interference after WCEC trimmed trees on his property. WCEC moved for summary judgment, arguing Kindle failed to exercise due diligence in serving the citation, allowing the statute of limitations to run. The trial court granted summary judgment for WCEC, a decision Kindle appealed, raising issues regarding due diligence, WCEC's pleading of an affirmative defense, and the authority of its attorney. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Kindle's arguments lacked merit due to failure to provide explanation for delay, waive objections, or follow proper challenge procedures.

Summary JudgmentDue DiligenceStatute of LimitationsService of ProcessAffirmative DefenseAttorney AuthorityAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureTrespassFraud

References

Case No. ADJ3390481, ADJ4560133

Regular

Mar 11, 2019

GILDARDO PATINO vs. State Compensation Insurance Fund, Arrowood Indemnity Company

This case concerns the applicant's workers' compensation claims and the defendants' failure to depose a key medical expert before his death. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendants' petitions for removal and denied their petitions for reconsideration. The WCAB found that the defendants did not demonstrate due diligence in scheduling the expert's deposition after the WCJ granted further discovery. Therefore, the WCAB upheld the WCJ's finding that the defendants failed to exercise due diligence.

WCABGildardo PatinoApplicantIndustrial InjuryPsycheGroinInternal SystemUrological SystemTeethExtremities

References

Case No. ADJ10203862

Regular

Dec 08, 2016

EARNEST YBARRA vs. BIG 5 CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

Defendant Big 5 Corporation sought removal from a WCJ's order continuing trial to allow the applicant to supplement the medical record. The defendant argued this continuance was due to applicant's counsel's lack of diligence and violated their due process rights. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy and that the issue of attorney diligence could be addressed during attorney fee determination. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalMinute Orderpanel qualified medical examinerPQMEmedical recordsLabor Code section 5502due processReport and Recommendationcontinued trial

References

Showing 1-10 of 15,009 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Service Lloyds Insurance Co. v. Cook

Workers' Compensation AppealDue DiligenceService of CitationIndustrial Accident BoardStatutory InterpretationTexas Civil ProcedureJurisdictionRemandAppellate Review

References

Case No. CR-007805-25BX

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 16, 2025

People v. Jefferson M.Q.

Discovery ComplianceDue DiligenceCertificate of ComplianceSpeedy TrialStatutory InterpretationRetroactivity of StatutesCriminal Procedure LawIAB AttachmentsMisdemeanor ChargesProsecutorial Misconduct

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co.

Worker's CompensationSummary JudgmentDue DiligenceService of ProcessStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewTexas LawTrial Court JudgmentDismissalReinstatement

References

Case No. 12-02-00378-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 04, 2004

Buddy Kindle v. Wood County Electric Co-Op, Inc., Mr. Jim Dozier, Individually and as an Officer of Wood County Electric Co-Op, Inc., and Harris Line Service

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDue DiligenceService of ProcessAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewAttorney RepresentationWaiverTrespassTortious Interference

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Ozuna v. Southwest Bio-Clinical Laboratories

dismissalwant of prosecutionappellate reviewabuse of discretiondue diligenceattorney responsibilityTexas Civil ProcedureRule 165a interpretationreinstatement of caseworkers' compensation claim

References

Case No. 08-10-00003-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 16, 2011

Leslie T. Holmes v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

worker's compensationdue diligencestatute of limitationssummary judgmentservice of processappellate reviewTexas lawcivil procedurelimitations periodjudgment affirmation

References

Case No. 14-06-00762-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 30, 2007

in the Interest of C.L.S

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Kindle v. Wood County Electric Co-Op, Inc.

Summary JudgmentDue DiligenceStatute of LimitationsService of ProcessAffirmative DefenseAttorney AuthorityAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureTrespassFraud

References

Case No. ADJ3390481, ADJ4560133

Regular

Mar 11, 2019

GILDARDO PATINO vs. State Compensation Insurance Fund, Arrowood Indemnity Company

WCABGildardo PatinoApplicantIndustrial InjuryPsycheGroinInternal SystemUrological SystemTeethExtremities

References

Case No. ADJ10203862

Regular

Dec 08, 2016

EARNEST YBARRA vs. BIG 5 CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalMinute Orderpanel qualified medical examinerPQMEmedical recordsLabor Code section 5502due processReport and Recommendationcontinued trial

References

Showing 1-10 of 15,009 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.