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. 06-01-00034-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2002

Terry Allen and Wife, Brenda Allen, Individually and A/N/F Matthew Allen, a Minor, Timothy Allen, a Minor and Jennifer Allen, a Minor v. a & T Transportation Company, Inc.

Terry Allen, a truck driver, sustained injuries when his partially-loaded tanker truck overturned. He and his wife, individually and as next friends for their minor children, sued his employer, A & T Transportation Company, Inc., alleging that the company failed to warn or train him about the unique handling characteristics of a partially-loaded tanker. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of A & T. On appeal, the Allens argued that the trial court erred because A & T had a mandatory and nondelegable duty to warn employees of hazards and provide a safe workplace. The appellate court found no legal authority supporting a duty for an employer to train an experienced individual in their chosen trade. The court concluded that the employer had no duty to instruct Terry Allen, thereby negating a necessary element of the Allens' negligence claim. Consequently, the summary judgment was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer DutyNegligence ClaimTruck Driver InjuryTanker Truck AccidentPartial Load HazardDuty to WarnDuty to TrainExperienced Employee
References
35
Case No. 13-09-704-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2011

Joyce Ann Allen v. Evangelina Allen

Joyce Ann Allen (mother) appealed an order granting Evangelina Allen (grandmother) joint managing conservatorship of her two granddaughters. Joyce Ann Allen raised two issues on appeal: lack of notice for the final hearing and Evangelina Allen's lack of standing to seek modification of the parent-child relationship. The Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that Joyce Ann Allen failed to overcome the presumption of proper notice regarding the final hearing and that Evangelina Allen had standing to file the suit because there was evidence that a modification order was necessary due to the children’s circumstances and because the parents had consented to temporary orders.

Custody DisputeGrandparent RightsManaging ConservatorshipParental RightsChild SupportDefault JudgmentNotice of HearingStandingAppellate ReviewTexas Family Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. a & T Transportation Co.

Terry Allen, a truck driver, sustained injuries when his partially-loaded tanker truck overturned, prompting him and his family to sue his employer, A & Transportation Company, Inc. (A & T). The Allens alleged that A & T failed in its duty to warn or train Terry Allen about the specific handling characteristics of a partially-loaded tanker. The trial court granted A & T's motion for summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the Allens contended the trial court erred because the employer has a nondelegable duty to warn employees of hazards and provide a safe workplace. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that A & T had no duty to instruct an experienced employee like Terry Allen in his chosen trade, especially since the dangers related to liquid loads were considered known in the profession and not unexpected.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityDuty to WarnNegligence ClaimTrucking AccidentTanker Truck OperationsExperienced EmployeeNo-Evidence MotionAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. 04-14-00622-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2014

Marisela G. Salas, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Martin Suarez and as Next Friend of Keyla Marizel Salas Suares, Minor v. Allen Keller Co. I, L.L.C. D/B/A Allen Keller Co.

This case concerns an appeal of a summary judgment granted in favor of Allen Keller Co., a general contractor, in a negligence lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by the estate of Martin Suarez, an employee of subcontractor C&B White Services, Inc., who died after falling from a truck while moving traffic control signs on a TxDOT roadway project. The appellant argued that Allen Keller Co. retained sufficient control over the work to be held liable. The trial court determined that Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code did not apply and granted summary judgment based on common law, finding that Allen Keller Co. did not exercise sufficient control over the specific activity causing the injury and had no actual knowledge of the danger. The appellee's brief asks the appellate court to affirm the trial court's judgment.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityDuty of CareTraffic ControlConstruction AccidentWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Delta Materials Handling, Inc.

Felton Allen and Barbara Allen sued Delta Materials Handling, Inc. for injuries Mr. Allen sustained from a defective forklift leased by Delta to his employer, The Regina Company. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, which Delta appealed. The core issue on appeal was whether a defendant in a negligence action could assert comparative negligence of the plaintiff's employer or co-employee as an affirmative defense, even if the employer was immune under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act. Citing Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. and McIntyre v. Balentine, the court determined that fault could only be attributed to parties against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action, thus excluding the employer in this context. The court also affirmed the trial court's denial of a mistrial motion regarding an improper statement made by plaintiff's counsel during closing arguments, finding no prejudice since the statement was interrupted.

Comparative NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ActForklift InjuryEmployer LiabilityNonparty FaultTort ActionAffirmative DefenseTrial Court JudgmentAppealMistrial
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Texas Electric Service Company

Abe S. Allen was seriously injured while working for R. B. Stovall Construction Company, a contractor for Texas Electric Service Company, when he came into contact with an energized wire. Allen sued Texas Electric Service Company, alleging negligence, retained control, and nondelegable duty for inherently dangerous work. The jury found Texas Electric negligent in some aspects but also found Allen contributorily negligent. The trial court initially disregarded the contributory negligence finding but later disregarded the findings of negligence against Texas Electric and sustained Texas Electric's motion for judgment, resulting in a take-nothing judgment against Allen. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that Texas Electric did not fail in any duty owed to Allen, noting Allen's experience and knowledge of the dangers, and found no evidence of Texas Electric's right of control beyond ensuring work compliance.

Independent Contractor LiabilityOwner-Contractee DutyInherently Dangerous WorkContributory NegligencePremises LiabilityKnown DangersElectrical AccidentAppellate ReviewTexas LawPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. 3-85-0031
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Allied Plant Maintenance Company of Tennessee

Plaintiff Allen sued Allied Plant Maintenance Company, the International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), and Local 912 of the IUOE following his discharge in July 1984. Allen alleged a conspiracy among the defendants, leading to violations of federal labor laws, including the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), and the duty of fair representation (DFR) under the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), as well as a state claim for breach of employment contract. Chief Judge Wiseman granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims except the DFR claim. The Court dismissed Allen's civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) due to a lack of class-based discriminatory animus and an insufficient nexus to a federal court proceeding, and found the NLRA claims preempted by the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction. The LMRDA claim was dismissed as it did not infringe upon Allen's rights as a union member. The judge denied the defendants' motion to strike Allen's jury demand for the DFR claim but granted the motion to strike his request for punitive damages.

Summary JudgmentDuty of Fair RepresentationLabor RelationsWrongful TerminationUnion ConspiracyFederal PreemptionCivil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985)Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure ActNational Labor Relations ActBreach of Contract
References
52
Case No. 2022-05-0709A, 2022-05-0709B
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

Allen, Marilyn v. Frito Lay, INC.

Frito Lay, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment on Marilyn Allen's claim for an alleged right-knee injury at work, contending that Ms. Allen failed to file her suit within one year of the dates of injury, as no benefits were paid. Ms. Allen argued that her refiled petition, after a nonsuit of a previous petition with incorrect dates, fell within the ninety-day savings period provided by the nonsuit statute, allowing her to proceed with the claim. The Court granted Frito-Lay’s Motion for Summary Judgment, ruling that Ms. Allen's petitions, which alleged new dates of injury, constituted new causes of action. Consequently, these new causes of action were filed more than a year after the alleged dates of injury, placing them outside the applicable statute of limitations, and her claim was dismissed with prejudice.

summary judgmentstatute of limitationsnonsuit ruleworkers' compensationright-knee injuryrefiled claimnew cause of actiontimely filingdismissed with prejudiceTennessee law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Paul Revere Life Insurance

Verbon E. Allen sued The Paul Revere Life Insurance Company for total disability benefits under two insurance policies in the Chancery Court of Anderson County. The insurer denied total disability and continuity. The Chancellor found Allen continuously and totally disabled from September 8, 1958, and awarded benefits. The defendant appealed, challenging the findings and the Chancellor's evidentiary rulings regarding Allen's emotional instability and a prior partial disability settlement. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Allen's physical inability to perform gainful occupation and his attempts to work did not break the continuity of his disability, supported by medical evidence of a failed spine fusion.

Total DisabilityInsurance BenefitsSpine FusionBack InjuryContinuous DisabilityPolicy InterpretationOccupational LimitationsEarning CapacitySpondylolisthesisMedical Evaluation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT v. Allen

Jerome D. Allen, a juvenile correction officer, was injured in March 2004 during employment. The State Office of Risk Management (SORM), administrator of workers' compensation, accepted head and shoulder injuries but disputed a lower back injury. A contested case hearing and subsequent appeals panel both found Allen's compensable injury extended to his lower back. SORM sought judicial review, and a jury also found in Allen's favor. SORM appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence (a hearing officer's decision and order) and that the verdict was factually insufficient. The appellate court found any error in admitting the decision and order harmless, as the evidence was cumulative and also presented through SORM's own expert witness. The court also found the evidence factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict, noting Allen's testimony about new back pain symptoms post-injury and the compensability of aggravating a pre-existing condition. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewHearsay EvidenceFactual SufficiencyJury VerdictCompensable InjuryLower Back InjuryPre-existing ConditionMedical RecordsChiropractor Testimony
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,597 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