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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wooldridge v. TXU Electric Delivery Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Phillip Darren Wooldridge against TXU Electric Delivery Company after a trial court judgment found him partially responsible for injuries sustained from electrocution during a roofing accident. Wooldridge argued the trial court erred by not including a specific jury instruction regarding the employment status of Johnny Calhoun, a designated responsible third party, and the applicability of Texas Health and Safety Code Section 752. The trial court refused the instruction, allowing alternative theories of liability. The jury ultimately attributed varying percentages of negligence to multiple parties, including Wooldridge, Jim Gribble, Wayne’s Roofing, Johnny Calhoun, Brazos River Authority, and TXU. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting the jury charge.

Jury InstructionElectrocution InjuryHigh Voltage LineResponsible Third PartyNegligence AttributionTexas Health and Safety CodeEmployee vs. Independent ContractorProximate CauseAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
6
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. 2017-03-0832
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2017

Foust, David Michael v. Pinnacle Delivery Service

The claimant alleged a left knee injury while working as a delivery helper for Pinnacle Delivery Service, which contended he was an independent contractor and denied the injury arose from employment. The trial court found a likely employment relationship but insufficient evidence of a work-related injury, thus denying benefits. The claimant appealed but failed to provide a transcript, statement of evidence, or a brief to support his arguments. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, deeming the appeal frivolous due to the inadequate record, and remanded the case for any necessary further proceedings, but did not award expenses to the employer.

AppealInterlocutory AppealIndependent Contractor StatusEmployment RelationshipKnee InjuryExpedited HearingFrivolous AppealInadequate RecordAppellate ProcedureBurden of Proof
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. 03-23-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2025

The City of Killeen v. Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC

This dissenting opinion argues that a constitutional suit filed by Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC against the City of Killeen is unripe. The judge emphasizes that ripeness requires a concrete injury that has occurred or is likely to occur, rather than being contingent or remote, and finds Oncor's alleged takings injury premature. The dissent highlights that condemnation proceedings under Chapter 21 of the Texas Property Code provide an adequate legal remedy for property owners to litigate defenses such as inadequate compensation and lack of public use. Furthermore, the judge notes that the City's council has not yet voted to file a condemnation petition, making Oncor's claim based on hypothetical facts and events that have not yet transpired, thus advocating for dismissal.

Ripeness DoctrineEminent DomainTakings ClauseConstitutional LawDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefChapter 21 ProceedingsJust CompensationPublic UseDissenting Opinion
References
35
Case No. 05-19-01331-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2022

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC v. Victor Quintanilla, Oscar Interiano Rosales and Accident Fund Insurance Company of America

Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC appealed a jury finding of negligence after two excavation workers, Victor Quintanilla and Oscar Interiano Rosales, were electrocuted by an energized guy wire at a construction site in Dallas County, Texas. Oncor argued that its Chapter 752 defense, based on the workers' alleged failure to provide notice and safety arrangements before excavation, should bar the claims. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's negligence finding against Oncor. The court also rejected Oncor's challenges to the jury's adverse findings on its Chapter 752 defense, as well as arguments regarding jury charge errors and alleged improper jury argument by appellees' counsel.

Workplace InjuryElectrical HazardNegligence LiabilityHigh Voltage LinesStatutory DefenseJury VerdictAppellate AffirmationConstruction Site SafetyIndependent Contractor LiabilityForeseeability of Harm
References
57
Case No. 03-10-00430-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

Nucor Steel - Texas, a Division of Nucor Corporation v. Public Utility Commission of Texas, Oncor Electric Delivery Company and Texas Energy Future Holdings Limited Partnership

Texas Energy Future Holdings Partnership (Texas Energy) sought to acquire Oncor Electric Delivery Company (Oncor), a regulated electric utility. The Public Utility Commission (Commission) approved the acquisition, determining it was in the public interest, a decision upheld by the district court. Nucor Steel - Texas (Nucor) appealed, challenging the Commission's statutory interpretation regarding the scope of its public-interest analysis and its evidentiary rulings. Nucor argued the Commission improperly limited evidence to only direct effects on Oncor and that the decision lacked substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, deferring to the Commission's reasonable interpretation of its authority in a deregulated electricity market and finding its evidentiary rulings and public-interest determination supported by substantial evidence.

Public Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityUtility AcquisitionPublic Interest AnalysisStatutory InterpretationDeregulation of Electricity MarketEvidentiary RulingsDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceStipulation Agreement
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC

The case concerns a putative class action brought by delivery drivers against several defendants, including Chefs Diet Delivery, LLC, for alleged violations of Labor Law article 6 regarding wage and benefit payments. The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, categorizing the drivers as independent contractors. The Appellate Court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiffs' allegations were sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship due to the defendants' control over their work. The court also determined that the documentary evidence provided by the defendants was insufficient to conclusively prove the drivers were independent contractors, thus denying the motions to dismiss.

Class ActionLabor LawWage and HourEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewDegree of ControlDelivery DriversWorkers' Rights
References
26
Case No. ADJ16905183
Regular
Apr 03, 2025

KIMBERLY ARREOLA CORTES vs. OC DIRECT DELIVERY, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

Kimberly Arreola Cortes, a delivery associate, claimed a work-related injury but repeatedly failed to attend scheduled medical evaluations with QME Dr. Ryan Culver due to personal reasons and relocation. Following a petition by the defendant, OC Direct Delivery, for dismissal due to inactivity, the WCJ issued a Notice of Intention to Dismiss Case. Applicant filed a premature Petition for Reconsideration, incorrectly believing the NIT was a final order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration, finding both applicant's petition and defendant's prior petition for dismissal premature due to errors in applying notice periods for out-of-state service, and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissQualified Medical EvaluatorAOE/COEOut-of-State RelocationWCAB Rule 10550Inactive Case DismissalPetition for DismissalPremature Filing
References
3
Case No. ADJ106846 (VNO 0536976)
Regular
Apr 28, 2011

SARKIS INDOIAN (Dec'd), BETTY INDOIAN (Widow) vs. ON THE WHEELS, SUCCESS DELIVERY, NOUNE SOMOKRANIAN, VIGEN GABOUCHIAN, ROUZZANA ARCHAKOUNI, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding the decedent sustained a fatal cumulative trauma injury due to his employment with Success Delivery. The Board found the medical evidence, particularly the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report, lacked sufficient factual basis and an accurate employment history to establish a causal link. Consequently, the case was remanded to the trial level for further development of the medical record to determine if the employment with Success Delivery contributed to the injury.

Cumulative traumaIndustrial injuryDeath benefitsEmployment relationshipSubstantial shareholderPartnershipUninsured employerMedical evidenceCausationApportionment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 283 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