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. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

Star Houston, Inc.// Cross-Appellant,Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC, and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles// Star Houston, Inc., and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06033
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

Matter of Bernal v. New York Apple Car Serv.

Claimant's spouse, a cab driver dispatched by New York Apple Car Service (NYACS), was fatally stabbed while working. Claimant filed for workers' compensation death benefits. NYACS, a member of the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF), disputed liability, contending the decedent was a black car operator, making the New York Black Car Operator's Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF) responsible. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision that the decedent was an independent livery driver, holding the ILDBF carrier liable. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, rejecting the argument that the vehicle's affiliation with the NYBCOICF was determinative and relying on precedent set in _Matter of Cisnero v Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund_.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndependent Livery DriverBlack Car OperatorFund LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDispatch ServiceEmployer ResponsibilityVehicle Affiliation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1992

Claim of Le Fevre v. Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Worker's Compensation Board decision finding an employer-employee relationship between a claimant and Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. The claimant, a franchisee of Tel-A-Car's two-way radio dispatch transportation service, was required to operate a specific luxury car, lease a radio, charge Tel-A-Car's set fares, and abide by strict operational rules and a dress code. Despite some freedom in work hours, the Board based its determination of an employer-employee relationship on Tel-A-Car's significant control over car type, radio leasing, fare setting, and dispatching. The appellate court found these incidents of control sufficient to support the Board's determination. Furthermore, the court affirmed the decision and declined to consider a new argument regarding the State Franchise Act, as it was not raised before the Board.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation LawFranchise agreementControl testAppellate procedureFactual issueScope of employmentTransportation industryNew York lawGeneral Business Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1988

Calhoun v. Big Apple Wrecking Corp.

The defendant, Big Apple Wrecking Corporation, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The underlying injury occurred at a construction site, and the Workers' Compensation Board had previously determined the injury was work-related, providing benefits to the plaintiff's decedent. The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against Big Apple Wrecking Corporation. The court emphasized that workers' compensation benefits serve as the exclusive remedy for employees injured by co-workers in the same employ, citing Workers’ Compensation Law. Furthermore, the court reiterated that determinations made by the Workers' Compensation Board on questions of fact, including employer-employee relationships, are final and binding under principles of res judicata.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityRes JudicataAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstruction Site InjuryNew York LawExclusive RemedyAdministrative Determinations
References
6
Case No. 532689
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Monica Patricia Hidalgo Bernal (Poncefarfan, (dec'd) Otto)

Monica Patricia Hidalgo Bernal filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits after her spouse, a cab driver, was fatally stabbed while dispatched by New York Apple Car Service (NYACS). NYACS, a member of the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF), controverted the claim, contending the decedent was a black car operator, thus making the New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF) liable. The Workers' Compensation Board found the decedent to be an independent livery driver, holding NYACS and its ILDBF carrier responsible. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, referencing Matter of Cisnero v Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund, and reiterated that the vehicle's affiliation with NYBCOICF does not negate liability when the dispatch originated from an independent livery base.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndependent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF)New York Black Car Operators Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF)Livery DriverBlack Car OperatorStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormick v. Snappy Car Rentals, Inc.

Sharon McCormick sustained two successive work-related injuries, first in 1985 while employed by Snappy Car Rentals, Inc., and then in 1989 while working for Windshield Service Company, Inc. A trial court initially apportioned disability, ordering Snappy to pay 25% and Windshield 55% permanent partial disability. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed the judgment against Snappy, applying the 'last injurious injury rule.' This rule dictates that the last employer or its insurer is liable for the entire resulting disability, even if it aggravates a pre-existing condition, and prohibits apportionment between successive employers. Consequently, Windshield, as the second employer, is solely responsible for the 55% permanent partial disability award.

Worker's CompensationSuccessive InjuriesLast Injurious Injury RuleApportionment of LiabilityEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier LiabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityAggravation of Pre-existing ConditionCervical Spine InjuryMedical Impairment Rating
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.

Patricia K. Reed appealed the dismissal of her claims for retaliatory discharge and breach of employment contract against Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliatory discharge claim, ruling that Reed failed to establish a causal link between her workers' compensation claim and her termination, despite the one-year statute of limitations not having run. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the breach of employment contract claim, concluding that the "FamPact" document constituted a binding employment agreement. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Reed's statutory claim under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law, finding no private right of action for negligent case management. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the breach of contract claim.

Retaliatory DischargeBreach of Employment ContractWorkers' Compensation ClaimEmployment LawAt-Will EmploymentEmployee HandbookFamPactStatute of LimitationsCausation in EmploymentRelease of Liability
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2000

Claim of Spurck v. Avis Rent-A-Car

Claimant, concurrently employed by Avis Rent-A-Car and First Call, suffered a work-related compensable injury during his employment with Avis in February 1995. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case and determined claimant's average weekly wage based on wages from both concurrent employments. Avis sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) for awards made when claimant’s wages at a subsequent employer (Autohaus South Volkswagen, Inc.) exceeded his Avis wages or pre-injury rate. Both the WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied reimbursement, a determination that Avis and its carrier appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that Avis's liability was not greater under WCL § 14 (6) than it would have been under prior law, which is the relevant inquiry for Special Fund reimbursement.

Workers CompensationSpecial Disability FundConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageReimbursementEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewReduced EarningsNew York Workers Compensation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Booker v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems

Plaintiff Anthony Booker, a black employee of Budget Rent-A-Car in Nashville, alleges race discrimination and racial harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, along with retaliation. He claims General Manager Guy Grundman subjected him to severe verbal abuse, racial slurs, and disproportionately harsh treatment, leading to a demotion in January 1993. Booker further alleges he was denied a promotion in April 1993 and retaliated against with a negative performance evaluation and denial of an Airport Manager position after filing an EEOC charge. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Booker's claims of racial harassment and discrimination regarding his demotion may proceed, but his failure to promote, retaliation, and wage discrimination claims were dismissed.

Racial HarassmentRace DiscriminationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Hostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentDemotionEmployment LawSupervisor LiabilityDisparate Treatment
References
49
Case No. 2018-08-1394
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2019

Johnson, Frederick v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car

Frederick Johnson, a service technician, sustained injuries when a co-worker accidentally struck him with a van at Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Enterprise denied his claim, asserting his injuries resulted from horseplay and willful misconduct, which the employer prohibited. However, the Court found insufficient evidence to support the horseplay defense, concluding instead that the incident stemmed from a miscommunication and the co-worker's improper driving. The Court ruled that Mr. Johnson is likely to prevail on the merits, granting him medical and temporary total disability benefits. Enterprise was ordered to cover incurred medical expenses, provide a panel of physicians, and pay $885.95 in temporary total disability.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingHorseplay DefenseWillful MisconductMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCredibility AssessmentMiscommunicationEmployee InjuryEmployer Liability
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 643 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