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. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. 2021-01-0057
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2022

Bailey, Marie v. Amazon

The employee, Marie P. Bailey, sustained an injury to her right arm and shoulder at Amazon. Initially, the employer accepted the claim but subsequently denied it after Bailey missed two medical appointments. Bailey contended that one appointment was missed due to a COVID-19 diagnosis and she was unaware of the second. The trial court found sufficient evidence to support Bailey's claim for additional medical benefits, ordering Amazon to authorize further care. Amazon appealed, but the Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer's denial based on alleged noncompliance was unsupported by Tennessee law and that a medical questionnaire used by the employer's counsel contained misstatements of law, rendering its findings untrustworthy. The case was remanded.

Medical BenefitsMissed AppointmentsMedical NoncomplianceCausationIntervening EventTrial Court AffirmationAppeals Board ReviewEmployer DenialEmployee RightsWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
9
Case No. 2022-05-1262, 2022-05-0597
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2024

Burris, Stuart v. WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc., and Burris v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

The employee, Stuart Burris, filed two separate workers' compensation petitions against two different employers, WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC, for distinct low back and hip injuries sustained in 2020 and 2022, respectively. The trial court consolidated the cases and, in an interlocutory hearing, awarded benefits against Amazon, partly relying on evidence introduced by WWL. Amazon appealed, arguing that evidence introduced by one employer in a consolidated case should not be used against another, and that the employee was effectively relieved of his burden of proof. The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated the trial court's order. It held that consolidation does not merge separate actions or alter evidentiary requirements, meaning evidence must be presented by a party to the specific claim against which it is to be used. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Workers' Compensation AppealsCase ConsolidationEvidentiary BurdenMedical CausationAuthorized Treating PhysicianPre-existing ConditionInterlocutory HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsJudicial EconomyRule 42.01
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07104
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Khaychuk (Amazon Logistics, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns an appeal by Amazon Logistics, Inc. (ALI) from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled that ALI was liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for claimant Alexander Khaychuk and others similarly situated. Khaychuk, a delivery partner (DP) for ALI's Amazon Flex platform, applied for unemployment benefits after his engagement ended. The Board determined an employment relationship existed, reversing an Administrative Law Judge's decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that ALI exercised sufficient control over significant aspects of the DPs' work, such as providing customers, assigning deliveries, setting time frames, and unilaterally determining fees. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, despite arguments that could support an independent contractor classification.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipAmazon FlexDelivery PartnersControl TestUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentRemuneration
References
7
Case No. 2021-06-0188
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2021

Davis, Donna v. Amazon.com, Inc.

This interlocutory appeal stems from the denial of an employer's motion to deny the employee's request for an independent medical examiner from the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Medical Impairment Rating Registry (MIRR). Employee Donna Davis sustained a knee injury, and her treating physician, Dr. James Rungee, found no permanent impairment but imposed permanent restrictions based on a functional capacity evaluation. Employer Amazon.com, Inc. argued against an MIRR examination, contending that the restrictions stemmed from a pre-existing condition, thus negating a dispute over impairment. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims denied the employer's motion, concluding that a dispute existed given the physician's restrictions without an impairment rating. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed this decision, disagreeing with the employer's interpretation and remanding the case.

Workers' CompensationMedical ImpairmentPermanent RestrictionsPre-existing ConditionIndependent Medical ExaminerFunctional Capacity EvaluationAppellate ReviewMotion in LimineKnee InjuryTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01590 [225 AD3d 1075]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Matter of Dent v. Amazon.Com Servs., Inc.

Claimant Naomi Dent sustained injuries to her left foot, ankle, and lower leg when she was trampled by fellow passengers while boarding a public bus on her second day of employment at Amazon.com Services, Inc.'s fulfillment center. She subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was controverted by her employer and its carrier. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the claim, ruling that the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the injuries occurred in a public area away from the workplace and did not involve a special hazard or a close association of the access route with the employment premises.

Workers' CompensationPublic TransportationCourse of EmploymentOff-Premises InjurySpecial HazardGoing and Coming RuleAppellate ReviewInjury CompensationBoard DecisionThird Department
References
7
Case No. 2014-01-0012
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2016

Arriaga, Elsa v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.

The employee, Elsa Arriaga, sought workers' compensation for neck, back, and foot injuries sustained during her employment at Amazon.com, Inc. Initially denied by the employer's chosen medical facility, the trial court subsequently ruled in favor of the employee regarding medical benefits, but denied temporary disability. The employer appealed this decision, challenging the admissibility of medical records and the trial court's findings on causation. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order for medical benefits and remanded the case for further proceedings, finding no error in the trial court's resolution of the issues.

Workers' Compensation AppealMedical Benefits AwardTemporary Disability DeniedInterlocutory AppealEmployer LiabilityCausation PresumptionMedical Records AdmissibilitySpinal InjuryTendonitisWarehouse Work Injury
References
8
Case No. 2021-01-0034
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

McCarroll, Anthony v. Amazon.com

The employee, Anthony J. McCarroll, Jr., alleged a work injury on August 29, 2019, but did not report it until after another incident on October 10, 2019. He filed a petition for benefits for the August 29 accident on January 15, 2021. The employer, Amazon.com, moved for summary judgment, arguing the petition was filed more than one year after its last voluntary payment of benefits on December 23, 2019. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the employee's claim. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the employer successfully negated the timely filing of the petition, an essential element of the employee's claim.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsTimely FilingWorkers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary Payment of BenefitsPro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewMedical EvaluationConcussionWorkplace Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elena E. Francisco, Inc. v. Texas Employment Commission

Manuel Diaz, a supervisor, was discharged from his employment for allegedly lying about a December 6, 1987 incident involving alleged marihuana use. The Texas Employment Commission (TEC) granted him unemployment compensation benefits, finding no misconduct. The employer appealed this decision, raising two points of error: (1) insufficient evidence to support the TEC's ruling and (2) trial court error in excluding evidence of other misconduct not presented to the Commission. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, which had upheld the TEC's ruling, emphasizing that the 'substantial evidence' rule is the correct standard of review for TEC decisions, despite statutory language implying a de novo trial. The court also found no error in the trial court's handling of the additional misconduct evidence.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployment TerminationWorkplace MisconductLyingMarihuana UseSubstantial Evidence ReviewTrial De NovoAppellate ProcedureAdministrative LawTexas Law
References
6
Case No. 2022-05-0554
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2023

REAZKALLAH, MAIKEL v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC

Mr. Reazkallah claimed a low back injury at Amazon, which Amazon denied based on Dr. Harold Nevels's opinion that the injury was not primarily work-related. Mr. Reazkallah's attempts to introduce other medical evidence were inadmissible. The Court found Mr. Reazkallah failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of Dr. Nevels's causation opinion, as he provided no admissible medical proof that his injury primarily arose from his employment. Consequently, the Court denied all requested medical and disability benefits, dismissing the claim with prejudice.

Workers' CompensationInjury CausationMedical EvidenceDenial of BenefitsEmployee Burden of ProofAuthorized Physician OpinionPresumption of CorrectnessLow Back InjuryDisability BenefitsMedical Treatment Denial
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 15,191 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