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. 01-09-00360-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

AMS Construction Company, Inc. D/B/A AMS Staff Leasing (AMS) v. Osman L. Sosa K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc.

An employer, K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc., sued its staff leasing company, AMS Construction Company, Inc. d/b/a AMS Staff Leasing, for breaching their agreement to provide workers' compensation insurance for an injured employee. A jury found AMS liable for breach of contract and fraud, leading to a judgment for KHK. AMS appealed, raising issues of subject matter jurisdiction, sufficiency of evidence for breach of contract, waiver defense, and an alleged collusive agreement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, determining that the trial court had jurisdiction and that legally sufficient evidence supported the breach of contract finding.

Workers' CompensationBreach of ContractFraudStaff Leasing AgreementEmployee LeasingSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewIndemnificationTexas LawJury Verdict
References
29
Case No. 15-25-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2024

In Re Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. the State of Texas

The case involves Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC (Relator) challenging the First Business Court Division's decision to remand its lawsuit, originally filed in 2019, back to the Dallas County District Court. Synergy had removed the case to the Business Court, which was created by H.B. 19, a law that specifies its 'changes in law apply to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024.' The Business Court ruled that Synergy's 2019 case was not eligible for removal under this temporal limitation. Synergy has filed both a direct appeal and a mandamus petition, arguing that H.B. 19 should permit removal regardless of the case's age. The opposing parties, Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc. and HGS Healthcare, LLC, contend that the Business Court's interpretation of H.B. 19's plain text is correct and that Synergy has an adequate remedy through a standard appeal after a final judgment.

Texas Business CourtMandamusStatutory InterpretationRemovalRemandH.B. 19Judicial DiscretionAppellate JurisdictionInterlocutory OrderForum Selection
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AMS Construction Co. v. K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc.

This case concerns an employer, K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc. (KHK), suing its staff leasing company, AMS Construction Company, Inc. d/b/a AMS Staff Leasing (AMS), for failing to provide workers' compensation insurance to an injured employee, Osman Sosa, as per their agreement. A jury found AMS liable for breach of contract and fraud. AMS appealed the decision, raising arguments regarding the trial court's jurisdiction, the sufficiency of evidence for breach of contract and fraud, KHK's alleged waiver of claims, and public policy concerns due to alleged collusion. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court had proper jurisdiction, that legally sufficient evidence supported the breach of contract findings, that AMS did not preserve its waiver claim, and that there was no evidence of an improper collusive agreement.

Breach of ContractWorkers' Compensation InsuranceStaff Leasing AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionFraud ClaimWaiver DefenseCollusive AgreementMary Carter AgreementExclusive Remedy ProvisionTexas Labor Code
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graham v. ADESA TEXAS, INC.

Otto Graham, an employee, died from a head injury after falling from the bed of a pickup truck at an Adesa Texas, Inc. d/b/a Adesa Dallas facility. His wife and three sons, after receiving workers' compensation, sued Adesa and AMS Construction Company, Inc. d/b/a AMS Staff Leasing for gross negligence in his death. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the gross negligence claim and denied the plaintiffs leave to amend their petition to seek actual damages. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the summary judgment on the gross negligence claim, concluding there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate the defendants created an extreme risk or acted with conscious indifference. However, the court reversed the trial court's refusal to allow the plaintiffs to amend their petition, finding the defendants failed to prove unfair surprise or prejudice. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion regarding the amended petition.

Gross NegligenceSummary JudgmentAmended PleadingsWorkers' CompensationConscious IndifferenceExtreme RiskAppellate ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionExemplary DamagesActual Damages
References
15
Case No. 24-BC01B-0007
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2024

Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC v. Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc., and HGS Healthcare, LLC

This case concerns a commercial dispute over unpaid commissions, initiated by Synergy Global Outsourcing, LLC against Hinduja Global Solutions, Inc. and HGS Healthcare, LLC. The plaintiff removed the action, originally filed in the 191st Judicial District Court of Dallas County in 2019, to the newly established First Business Court Division for Dallas County in October 2024. The defendants subsequently filed a motion to remand, contending that the Business Court's jurisdiction, as defined by H.B. 19, is restricted to civil actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024. The Business Court granted the remand motion, ruling that the plain text of H.B. 19, Section 8, indeed limits its authority to cases filed from September 1, 2024, onwards, thus preventing it from hearing the plaintiff's pre-existing case. The Relator (Synergy) argues this interpretation is a clear abuse of discretion, asserting that H.B. 19 is a procedural statute intended to apply to ongoing matters and that Section 8 merely signifies the court's operational commencement date. The Relator is pursuing mandamus relief, arguing that there is no adequate remedy by conventional appeal.

MandamusBusiness CourtJurisdiction DisputeStatutory InterpretationRetroactivityTexas LawCommercial LitigationRemand OrderAppellate ProcedureEffective Date of Statute
References
20
Case No. NO. 01-08-00650-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2009

Troy J. Shuttleworth v. G & a Outsourcing, Inc. D/B/A G & a Partners

This case involves an appeal by Troy Shuttleworth, Questco, Inc., and U.S.A. Staffing, Inc. (the 'Shuttleworth Defendants') against G&A Outsourcing, Inc. d/b/a G&A Partners ('G&A') regarding a temporary injunction. G&A, a professional employer organization, sued Shuttleworth, a former sales representative, for breaching an employment agreement's non-compete/non-solicitation provision and misappropriating confidential information after he resigned to work for U.S.A. Staffing and Questco. G&A sought injunctive relief and damages in Harris County, while the Shuttleworth Defendants argued the Harris County trial court lacked jurisdiction, citing Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 65.023(a). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that section 65.023(a) did not apply because G&A's request for injunctive relief was ancillary to its claims for substantial damages arising from breach of contract and tortious acts. Thus, the temporary injunction entered by the trial court was upheld.

Non-compete agreementNon-solicitationTemporary injunctionBreach of contractMisappropriation of trade secretsTortious interferenceVenueJurisdictionTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeEmployment agreement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AMS Const. Co., Inc. v. Warm Springs Rehabilitation Foundation, Inc.

AMS Construction Co., Inc. (AMS) filed a mechanic's lien against Warm Springs Rehabilitation Foundation, Inc. (Warm Springs) for labor furnished during hospital construction. The trial court granted Warm Springs' motion for partial summary judgment, deeming the lien invalid. AMS appealed, challenging the summary judgment and the competency of Warm Springs' evidence. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether AMS qualified for a lien, the defenses of estoppel and payment, and confirmed the legal sufficiency of the lien affidavit's property description despite an incorrect county. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mechanic's LienSummary JudgmentTexas Property CodeEstoppelPayment DefenseAffidavit CompetencyCo-employmentSubcontractorGeneral ContractorAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. ADJ9602695
Regular
Sep 26, 2019

KELLY MULDROW vs. AMS OUTSOURCING/STAFFCHEX, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION (CIGA), ULLICO, SEDGWICK CMS, SENBA USA, INC., MITSUI SUMITOMO

This case concerns applicant Kelly Muldrow's claim for psychiatric injury stemming from her employment. The primary dispute revolves around the applicability of Labor Code section 3208.3(d), which generally requires six months of employment for psychiatric injury claims. The Appeals Board rescinded the initial findings, remanding the case to the trial level for further proceedings. This is because the prior ruling improperly deferred the threshold issue of section 3208.3(d)'s applicability without fully adjudicating it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKelly MuldrowAMS OutsourcingStaffchexCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAUllicoSedgwick CMSSenba USAMitsui Sumitomo
References
15
Case No. ADJ4153143, ADJ1964837 and ADJ1933860
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

JACK L. MARCUM vs. OUTSOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC. dba THE MANAGEMENT CONNECTION, SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., now liquidation, administered by CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, KLEEGE INDUSTRIES, INC. dba HANDS-ON EVENT LABOR SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant who sustained shoulder injuries in 1999 and 2000, with a compensation judge awarding 4% permanent disability. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) is appealing a decision holding it liable, arguing the applicant was not employed by a company insured by Legion Insurance (now handled by CIGA) but rather by Kleege Industries, insured by SCIF. CIGA contended there was a general/special employment relationship and that SCIF's policy should cover the applicant. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, affirmed the previous awards, and corrected a clerical error to accurately reflect Legion Insurance as the insurer for Outsource Management, Inc. during the relevant period.

California Insurance Guarantee AssociationLegion Insurance CompanyOutsource Management Inc.The Management ConnectionKleege Industries Inc.Hands-On Event Labor ServicesState Compensation Insurance Fundcumulative traumaright shoulder injurypermanent disability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cross v. Pan Am World Services, Inc.

This case involves a worker's compensation claim where Luther B. Cross, injured in an explosion while working for Pan Am World Services, Inc., settled a third-party tort action without notice to his employer. The central issue is the employer's liability for costs, including attorney's fees, incurred by the worker in securing a judgment against a third-party tortfeasor, particularly when the judgment relieves the employer of worker's compensation benefit liability. The trial court determined Pan Am's total worker's compensation liability, awarded it a credit for Cross's net recovery from the tortfeasor, and subjected Pan Am's recovered benefits to a lien for attorney's fees. On appeal, the court modified the judgment, ruling that Pan Am's recovered benefits should not be subjected to attorney's fees, citing prior case law establishing that attorney's fees are a first lien against the third-party recovery fund, not the employer's subrogation share. The judgment was modified to remove the attorney's fee lien against Pan Am's recovery and, as modified, affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationAttorney's FeesThird-Party TortfeasorIndemnificationNet RecoveryEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawCoffee County
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 30 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