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. 23-0273, 23-0950
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2025

Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurs in the denial of two petitions for review, acknowledging their significant statutory-interpretation questions and implications for the role of administrative agencies versus courts. The first petition (No. 23-0273) was a facial challenge by Accident Fund Insurance Company and Texas Cotton Ginners’ Trust against the Texas Department of Insurance regarding a rule on supplemental income benefits. The court found this challenge unsuitable as it presented no concrete example of the rule directly contravening the statute. The second petition (No. 23-0950) by Accident Fund General Insurance Company challenged lifetime income benefits awarded to Rodrigo Mendiola for severe burn injuries and loss of hand function. Accident Fund argued the lower courts used an outdated judicial standard instead of current statutory law. However, the court denied review because Mendiola's injuries qualified for benefits under both standards, rendering the choice between them non-outcome-determinative. Justice Young emphasized that this denial does not reflect a settled view on these issues, which may warrant review in future, more suitable cases with clearer records.

Workers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewPetition for ReviewSupplemental Income BenefitsLifetime Income BenefitsFacial ChallengeWorkers' Compensation ProgramSupreme Court of Texas
References
12
Case No. ADJ4519826 (AHM 0143791)
Regular
Oct 19, 2011

DEMAR MARTAY JENKINS vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS, DALLAS COWBOYS, ARIZONA RATTLERS, et al.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision finding California jurisdiction over the applicant's claim against the Arizona Rattlers. The Board found that the contract of hire was not made in California, as the applicant signed the agreement in Arizona and retained the ability to reject it. Therefore, California lacks jurisdiction over the claim against the Arizona Rattlers, and the applicant will take nothing from this defendant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardContract of HireJurisdictionArizona RattlersSCF ArizonaAvizent AnaheimWCJLabor Code Section 5305Labor Code Section 3600.5(a)Laeng v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romero v. La Revise Associates L.L.C.

Ruben Romero initiated a lawsuit against La Revise Associates, LLC, Jean Denoyer, and Regis Marnier, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Romero sought conditional approval for a collective action on behalf of tipped employees and kitchen staff, claiming underpayment of minimum wage, improper tip credit notices, excessive non-tipped duties, and wage manipulation. Defendants contested the motion, citing existing arbitration agreements with many employees. The court granted Romero's motion for conditional approval, ruling that the arbitrability of claims is a merits issue not relevant at this preliminary stage. The court also approved the proposed notice, limiting the look-back period for potential plaintiffs to three years as per FLSA, rather than the six years under NYLL.

FLSANYLLCollective ActionConditional CertificationTipped EmployeesMinimum WageTip CreditArbitration AgreementsWage and Hour DisputesEmployment Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson v. Lewis Bros. Bakery

Charles Wayne Davidson injured his shoulder in 2001 while working for Lewis Brothers Bakery and filed a workers' compensation claim, also naming the Second Injury Fund. After a voluntary non-suit in 2004, Davidson refiled the claim later that year, after the one-year statute of limitations had run. The Fund argued that the "savings statute" (Tennessee Code Annotated section 28-1-105(a)) did not apply to claims against it due to sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court of Tennessee agreed, holding that the savings statute does not waive the Fund's sovereign immunity and thus does not "save" claims against it after the statute of limitations has expired. The court modified the trial court's order, dismissing the Second Injury Fund and removing its liability for benefits and costs.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundSovereign ImmunitySavings StatuteStatute of LimitationsVoluntary Non-SuitTennessee LawAppellate ReviewPermanent Total DisabilityWorkplace Injury
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc. v. Steven Ratliff

Employee Steven Ratliff developed PTSD after witnessing two fatal work accidents in February and April 2008. He was diagnosed with PTSD on June 23, 2008, and filed a workers' compensation claim one year later. The employer, Gerdau Ameristeel, Inc., argued the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, which they contended began on the date of the second accident. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the employer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the statute of limitations commences when the employee discovers or reasonably should have discovered a compensable injury, which was the diagnosis date of June 23, 2008. The case was remanded for the trial court to award Mr. Ratliff 20% permanent partial disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderPTSDStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleOccupational InjuryMental InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilitySummary JudgmentAppeal
References
27
Case No. No. 08-13-00348-CV (TC#12-09-802)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2015

EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC v. Loving County Appraisal District

This ad-valorem tax case concerns the taxation of natural gas pipeline compressor packages. Appellants, EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC, lease these compressor packages. The trial court initially ruled that the packages qualified as heavy equipment but found the taxable situs in Loving County and deemed the statutory formulas for market value and tax (Texas Tax Code Sections 23.1241 and 23.1242) unconstitutional as applied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of these statutes and the determination of taxable situs. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding on constitutionality, holding that the statutes are not unconstitutional as applied, and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the taxable situs was indeed in Loving County.

Ad Valorem TaxHeavy EquipmentTaxation LawMarket Value AssessmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawTaxable SitusTexas Tax CodeAppraisal DistrictProperty Tax
References
16
Case No. 13-23-00492-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Robert S. Alcott III v. 1893 Oil and Gas, Ltd. and ELP2 Minerals, Ltd.

Appellants Robert S. Alcott III, Patricia Brashear, and Katie Lynn Stevenson appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of appellees 1893 Oil and Gas, Ltd. and ELP2 Minerals, Ltd. The dispute centers on mineral interests in Live Oak County, Texas, stemming from a 1922 "Alcott Deed" which appellants claim conveyed an undivided interest in oil, gas, or minerals. Appellees argued the claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the statute of frauds, asserting the Alcott Deed lacked an adequate legal description. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Alcott Deed violated the statute of frauds due to an insufficient legal description of the purported mineral interest.

oil and gasmineral rightssummary judgmentstatute of fraudsproperty lawdeed interpretationappellate reviewreal estateTexas lawundivided interest
References
15
Case No. 14-0797
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2015

in Re Steven C. Phillips

This case involves Steven C. Phillips, who was wrongfully imprisoned in Texas, seeking compensation under the Tim Cole Act, specifically for child support owed to Cheryl Macumber. Initially, the Comptroller determined an amount of $18,593.23 for child support arrearages and interest. After an application to cure and further review of Arkansas law regarding interest calculation, the Comptroller revised the payable amount. The final administrative decision by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, documented on January 7, 2015, authorized an additional payment of $6,532.46, bringing the total child support compensation to $25,125.69, which was paid to the Texas state disbursement unit for distribution to Ms. Macumber. The case highlights the complexities of calculating child support arrearages across state lines and the application of various interest statutes in wrongful imprisonment compensation cases.

Wrongful ImprisonmentTim Cole ActChild Support ArrearagesInter-state Child SupportMandamusTexas Comptroller of Public AccountsDNA ExonerationCivil Practice and Remedies CodeFamily LawStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dorety v. Avondale Shipyards of Texas, Inc.

Thelma Dorety sustained injuries on an offshore drilling platform on October 23, 1979, and subsequently filed a lawsuit on October 21, 1981, against Avondale Shipyards of Texas, Inc. Avondale sought a summary judgment, asserting that the Louisiana one-year statute of limitations for personal injuries barred Dorety's claim, as her suit was filed nearly two years post-injury. Dorety argued for the application of alternative limitation periods, including Louisiana's ten-year statute for latent defects, Texas's two-year statute, or the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers Compensation Act. The court determined that Louisiana law was applicable to injuries on the outer continental shelf and concluded that the one-year statute of limitations was not superseded by Dorety's arguments. Consequently, Avondale's motion for summary judgment was granted, preventing Dorety from pursuing her claim.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsPersonal InjuryOffshore Drilling AccidentLouisiana Civil CodeFederal Civil ProcedureOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActLatent DefectsTort LawJurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plasti-Line, Inc. v. Tennessee Human Rights Commission

A private employer, referred to as 'Appellant', brought an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, challenging the constitutionality of enforcement provisions within the Tennessee Human Rights Commission statutes (T.C.A. §§ 4-21-301 to 307). The Appellant argued that these statutes violated the separation of powers, the right to trial by jury, and judicial election provisions of the Tennessee Constitution. The Chancellor initially upheld the validity of the statutes and dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, finding no merit in the Appellant's claims. The Court highlighted that the Human Rights Commission functions as an administrative agency, administering public policy, and its orders are subject to judicial review and enforcement by the chancery court, thus not violating constitutional principles.

Human Rights LawDiscrimination LawEmployment DiscriminationAdministrative LawConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersRight to Jury TrialStatutory ValidityTennessee ConstitutionAppellate Decision
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,485 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