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. 10-12-00111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2013

Daniel Wayne Steele and Robert Dwayne Steele v. Tyson Goddard and Mylea Goddard

The case involves an appeal by Daniel Wayne Steele and Robert Dwayne Steele (Appellants) against Tyson Goddard and Mylea Goddard (Appellees) concerning a jury verdict in a real property sale dispute in Navarro County, Texas. The Goddards had alleged fraud, negligence, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations due to undisclosed termite damage and wood rot in a house purchased from Daniel Steele. The jury found both Daniel and Robert liable, awarding substantial damages. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence for Robert's liability under DTPA, negligence, and fraud, reversing the judgment against him. The court affirmed parts of the judgment against Daniel, suggested a remittitur for a portion of the damages representing a double recovery, and modified the judgment to reflect the Goddards' election of recovery solely under the DTPA.

Real estateproperty saletermite damagewood rotDeceptive Trade Practices Actfraudnegligencejury verdictappellate reviewdamages
References
49
Case No. NO. 02-12-00201-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2013

Mary Ellen Little, Becky Little Anthony, Tricia Rose Jackson, Eric John Little, James Shannon Little, Widow and Children of Johnny James Little, and Debra Dee Keefer, as Independent of the Estate of Johnny James Little v. Delta Steel, Inc. and Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

This case involves an appeal by the family of Johnny Little against Delta Steel, Inc. and its parent company, Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co., following Johnny's death in a workplace accident. Johnny, a crane operator for Delta Steel, was killed when a steel plate dislodged from an electromagnetic crane lacking a battery backup unit. Appellants sued for wrongful death and survival damages, alleging negligence and gross negligence. The trial court denied appellants' motions for summary judgment, granted appellees' motions, and overruled appellants' objections. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment for Delta Steel due to quasi-estoppel, as Johnny's widow had accepted workers' compensation benefits, and affirmed the summary judgment for Reliance on the gross negligence claim. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for Reliance on the ordinary negligence claim, finding that Reliance had voluntarily undertaken a duty of safety for Delta Steel's employees.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentQuasi-EstoppelParent Company LiabilitySubsidiary LiabilityVoluntary Undertaking DoctrineWorkplace SafetyCrane Accident
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Steel Co., Inc. v. Altenburg

Hank Altenburg, a temporary employee of Unique Employment Services, suffered a crush injury on his first day working for Western Steel Company, Inc. He sued Western Steel for negligence, which asserted the affirmative defense that Altenburg was a 'borrowed employee.' The jury found Western Steel negligent and rejected the borrowed employee defense. On appeal, Western Steel argued the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the jury's finding. Justice Castillo, in this dissenting opinion, would sustain Western Steel's appeal, concluding that the evidence conclusively established Altenburg was a borrowed employee and thus would reverse the lower court's decision and remand the case for further proceedings.

Borrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceIndustrial AccidentWorkers' CompensationRight to ControlLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyAppealTemporary EmploymentVicarious Liability
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Steel Co. v. Altenburg

Hank Altenburg, a temporary worker hired by Unique Employment Services, was injured while working for Western Steel Company. Altenburg sued Western Steel, which asserted a workers' compensation policy as a bar to the action, claiming Altenburg was a borrowed employee. The trial court denied Western's motion for summary judgment, and a jury found Altenburg was not a borrowed employee. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court, ruling that Western Steel failed to prove it had workers' compensation insurance. However, the Supreme Court of Texas determined that the existence of Western Steel's workers' compensation policy was undisputed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the sufficiency of the evidence for the jury's verdict regarding the borrowed employee status.

Workers' CompensationBorrowed EmployeeExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceInsurance PolicyTemporary WorkerTexas LawRemand
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jara v. Strong Steel Door, Inc.

Carlos Huerta, an undocumented worker, sued Strong Steel Door, Inc., and David Wei, claiming they failed to pay him the prevailing wage required by public works contracts. Strong Steel Door had terminated Huerta's employment after discovering he provided false documentation. Strong Steel Door sought summary judgment, arguing the employment contract was illegal due to the false documentation and that Huerta was precluded from recovery by the doctrine of 'unclean hands.' The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was affirmed. The appellate court held that neither the contract nor the work performed was illegal, and Strong Steel Door was not injured by Huerta's false documentation as they received the bargained-for labor. Additionally, Strong Steel Door failed to meet its burden of proof regarding payment of the prevailing wage.

breach of contractsummary judgmentprevailing wageundocumented workerillegal contract defenseunclean hands doctrineImmigration Reform and Control Actemployment lawappellate reviewcontract enforceability
References
15
Case No. 06-19-00008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2019

Melanie Steele v. Murphy & Beane, Inc., and Viacom, Inc.

Melanie Steele, an independent makeup artist, suffered severe injuries on a Viacom production set in Texas in 2006. Subsequently, she received treatment plans and benefits information from Murphy & Beane, Inc., a California-based third-party administrator. Steele sued both companies for fraud, fraudulent inducement, gross negligence, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Insurance Code, alleging misrepresentations and mishandling of her workers' compensation claim, including attempts to transfer it to California. The trial court granted a plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Steele's claims twice, citing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation, and Steele's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Steele's benefit dispute agreement with the Division only addressed compensability and did not resolve her other disputes or allegations of administrative violations.

Workers' CompensationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesTexas LawInsurance ClaimsFraudulent InducementGross NegligenceDeceptive Trade Practices ActTexas Insurance CodePlea to the Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. W2005-00913-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2006

Jerry T. Troup, Jr. v. Fischer Steel Corporation

This personal injury case involves comparative fault. Plaintiff Jerry Troup, an employee of a roofing subcontractor, fell through an uncovered hole at a warehouse construction site and sustained serious injuries. He received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, Jolly Roofing. Troup then filed a personal injury lawsuit against Fischer Steel Corporation, the steel subcontractor who cut the hole. Fischer Steel sought to assert comparative fault against the general contractor, Belz Enterprises, a non-party. The trial court denied this motion, and a jury found Fischer Steel 70% at fault, awarding Troup $546,000. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case, holding that Fischer Steel should have been permitted to assert fault against the general contractor, Belz, even though Belz was immune from suit under workers' compensation law, as this scenario did not involve an employer's subrogation lien that would defeat the employee's recovery.

Comparative faultSubcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor immunityPersonal injuryNegligence actionThird-party tortfeasorMotion in limineJury instructionsAppellate procedureStatutory immunity
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06230 [164 AD3d 1425]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2018

Hill v. Mid Is. Steel Corp.

The plaintiff, Danny Hill, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to Mid Island Steel Corp. in a personal injury action. Hill sustained injuries using a telescoping lift owned by Mid Island Steel Corp. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Mid Island Steel Corp., finding it was not an owner, contractor, or agent. However, the court modified the order, reinstating the common-law negligence claim, as Mid Island Steel Corp. failed to prima facie establish the lift was not in a defective condition.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Defective EquipmentTelescoping LiftAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollack v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Emil Pollack, a mason tender, fell from scaffolding while working on a Lowe's store construction site in Orangeburg, New York, on September 25, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sued Safway Steel Products, Inc., March Associates (general contractor), Orangeburg Holding, LLC (land owner), and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (developer), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, along with common law negligence and strict products liability. Both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg due to factual disputes. The court also denied March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg's cross-motion for summary judgment. Safway's motion for summary judgment was granted for the Labor Law § 200 claim but denied for §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. March's request for contractual and common law indemnification from CMC Concrete Masonry (a subcontractor and third-party defendant) was denied for summary judgment purposes due to unresolved issues of fault.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffolding accidentConstruction site injuryProximate causeContributory negligenceNon-delegable dutyGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityThird-party action
References
32
Case No. 13-02-450-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2005

Western Steel Company, Inc. v. Hank Altenburg

This is a dissenting opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals in the case of Western Steel Company, Inc. v. Hank Altenburg. The case concerns an industrial accident where Hank Altenburg, a temporary employee placed by Unique Employment Services, sustained a crush injury to his foot. A jury found Western Steel negligent and that Altenburg was not a borrowed employee. Western Steel appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence regarding the borrowed servant doctrine. Justice Castillo's dissenting opinion argues that the evidence conclusively established Altenburg was a borrowed employee of Western Steel as a matter of law, and thus the jury's finding to the contrary was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The dissent would reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with recent Texas Supreme Court precedent concerning the workers' compensation exclusive remedy bar for borrowed employees.

borrowed servant doctrineworkers' compensationnegligencelegal sufficiencyfactual sufficiencytemporary employeeindustrial accidentright to controlrespondeat superiorTexas law
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 417 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