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. 11-0549
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2013

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case addresses the availability of the common law "unlawful acts doctrine" as an affirmative defense in personal injury and wrongful death cases in Texas. The petitioner, Geoffrey Dugger, had been granted summary judgment in a wrongful death suit by Mary Ann Arredondo, based on the unlawful acts doctrine, following the death of Joel Martinez from a drug overdose at Dugger's home. The court of appeals reversed this judgment. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' decision, holding that the common law unlawful acts doctrine was abrogated by Chapter 33's proportionate responsibility scheme in the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court concluded that Section 93.001 of the Code provides only a narrow, statutory affirmative defense under specific circumstances (final conviction for felony or suicide), and does not broadly preserve the common law doctrine. Consequently, a plaintiff's conduct should generally be considered under proportionate responsibility rather than entirely barring recovery.

Wrongful DeathProportionate ResponsibilityUnlawful Acts DoctrineAffirmative DefenseTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeComparative NegligenceTort LawStatutory InterpretationIllegal ConductDrug Overdose
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The court denied a motion for rehearing and withdrew its previous opinion of February 6, 2003, substituting the current opinion. It also denied a petition for review concerning Timothy Austin's claim for workers' compensation benefits against Valley Forge Ins. Co. The court agreed with the court of appeals' conclusion that Austin's claim was not barred by the election-of-remedies doctrine. However, the court explicitly stated that it did not reach the merits of the court of appeals’ holding that Texas Labor Code section 409.009 abrogated the doctrine in workers’ compensation cases where group health insurance is involved, thus leaving this legal question open.

Workers' CompensationElection of RemediesStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewGroup Health InsuranceTexas Labor CodeJudicial ReviewLegal PrecedentInsurance Claims
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24011 [82 Misc 3d 812]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2024

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The Supreme Court, Albany County, addressed a negligence case where plaintiff Karla Smith sued Richard Ryder, Jr., a newspaper delivery person, and The Hearst Corporation/Hearst Communications, Inc., after Ryder struck her in a crosswalk. The core legal dispute involved whether Ryder was an employee or an independent contractor for Hearst, which would determine Hearst's vicarious liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Hearst moved for summary judgment, arguing that Labor Law and Workers' Compensation Law provisions classifying delivery persons as independent contractors for statutory benefits should override common law and apply to negligence claims. However, the court denied Hearst's motion, ruling that these statutes do not abrogate the common-law doctrine of respondeat superior in tort cases. The court found that a triable question of fact existed regarding Ryder's employment status, based on Hearst's alleged control over his delivery methods, monetary aspects, and disciplinary processes.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentNegligenceNewspaper DeliveryStatutory InterpretationCommon LawLabor Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The court addresses the novel legal issue of "preindemnification" and the application of the "antisubrogation rule" in cases involving disputes among insurance carriers over work site injuries. It rejects the "preindemnification" doctrine, which contractors asserted would prioritize owners' insurance coverage over their own, citing lack of support from contractual language, premium disparities, or common-law indemnification principles. However, the court affirms and extends the narrower antisubrogation rule, preventing an insurer from seeking recovery from its own insured for the same risk, even when multiple policies are involved. This rule is applied to bar subrogation claims in the cases of Prince and Valentin, but not in North Star due to specific policy exclusions.

Insurance LawIndemnificationSubrogationPreindemnification DoctrineAntisubrogation RuleWorkers' CompensationGeneral Contractors' Liability (GCL) InsuranceOwners' Contractors' Protective (OCP) InsuranceVicarious LiabilityContractual Obligation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

R.B. Slaughter, an employee of Basin Testers, Inc., tragically died after a fall in a company shower. His widow subsequently filed a claim for death benefits under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, which the trial court granted. The insurance company appealed this decision, raising concerns about the admissibility of a res gestae statement and challenging the sufficiency of evidence to prove Slaughter was within the course and scope of his employment. However, the appellate court affirmed the original judgment, concluding that ample independent evidence existed, even without the disputed statement, to establish Slaughter's eligibility for benefits under the personal convenience doctrine.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPersonal Convenience DoctrineCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentRes GestaeHearsayLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case concerns a common law personal injury action brought by an employee against her employer. The plaintiff was injured after falling over a roll of carpeting at work and subsequently received a settlement from the employer's compensation carrier under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Despite this, she asserted a common law action, arguing the employer was liable in a dual capacity as both employer and occupier of the premises. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the 'dual capacity' doctrine based on strong precedent from Cohn v. Spinks Industries, Inc., which emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Law represents the exclusive remedy in Texas.

Dual Capacity DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ActExclusivity ProvisionCommon Law ActionSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewLegal Precedent
References
3
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This is a consolidated action brought by 211 plaintiffs, both American and German, against Lucent Technologies, Inc., General Electric Company, Raytheon Company, and Honeywell International, Inc. The plaintiffs, members of German or American armed forces, allege exposure to dangerous levels of ionizing radiation from radar systems, causing various types of cancers. Defendants moved to sever and dismiss the German plaintiffs' claims based on the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*, arguing that Germany is a more convenient forum. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It denied dismissal for German plaintiffs who alleged a connection to Fort Bliss or other U.S. military bases, citing U.S. local interest, but granted dismissal for German plaintiffs with no alleged connection to the United States.

Forum Non ConveniensSeveranceDismissalConsolidated ActionGerman PlaintiffsAmerican PlaintiffsRadar SystemsIonizing RadiationProduct LiabilityMilitary Training
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Robbie Shaw sued E-Quest Management, LLC and Odyssey OneSource, Inc. for successor liability after her previous employer, Retirement Living Management, Inc. (RLM), went bankrupt, leaving an unpaid judgment for race discrimination. The trial court found E-Quest and Odyssey liable as successors-in-interest. On appeal, E-Quest and Odyssey argued that Texas law precludes implied successor liability. The appellate court reviewed Texas statutes (Tex. Bus. Orgs.Code Ann. § 10.254 and former article 5.10 of the Texas Business Corporations Act) which generally require express assumption of liabilities. The court distinguished federal common law successor liability (under Title VII) from Texas statutory law. It concluded that Texas law expressly abrogates doctrines like 'mere continuation' for imposing implied successor liability. Since E-Quest and Odyssey did not expressly assume RLM's liabilities, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in their favor.

Successor LiabilityCorporate LawAsset AcquisitionEmployment DiscriminationTexas Business Organizations CodeTitle VIITCHRAStatutory InterpretationCommon LawCorporate Nonliability Rule
References
29
Case No. Sumner Circuit No. 15078-C, C.A. No. 01A01-9709-CV-00492
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 1998

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The central issue in this case is whether the Tennessee TennCare Program's statutory subrogation and/or assignment provisions are subject to the common law 'made whole' doctrine. Plaintiffs Benny and Sheila Blankenship, TennCare enrollees, were involved in an automobile accident, incurring substantial medical expenses, partially paid by TennCare. After settling with the at-fault party's insurer for less than their total damages, the Blankenships successfully argued in the trial court that TennCare's subrogation claim was barred by the 'made whole' doctrine. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, asserting that statutory subrogation, unlike contractual subrogation, does not implicitly incorporate the 'made whole' doctrine unless explicitly stated in the statute. The court further clarified that while the state's right of subrogation is not subject to the 'made whole' doctrine, it is subject to the ordinary and reasonable attorney's fees incurred by the recipients.

SubrogationTennCareMade Whole DoctrineStatutory InterpretationMedicaidWorkers' CompensationAutomobile AccidentMedical ExpensesAttorney FeesEquitable Principles
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,002 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