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. 03-01-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2002

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Everest National Insurance Company (Everest) sought reimbursement from the Subsequent Injury Fund for overpaid workers' compensation benefits after district court judgments reversed prior agency decisions. The Fund denied a portion of the requested amount, leading Everest to file a declaratory judgment suit in district court. The district court dismissed the suit, citing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to Everest's alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that Everest was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because the Fund had previously stated no such remedies existed. The appellate court found Everest was authorized to bring a direct suit for declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act to enforce the Fund's statutory obligation, remanding the case for a decision on the merits.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ReimbursementSubsequent Injury FundAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesSubject-Matter JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case addresses an action brought by employees and retired employees of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Teamsters Fund) seeking to enjoin the merger of the Teamsters Fund with the Brewery Workers Pension Fund. Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), including insufficient employee notification of the proposed merger, potential reduction in benefits, and failure to meet minimum funding standards. Chief Judge Curtin of the federal court determined that ERISA provisions cited by plaintiffs were either inapplicable to multiemployer plans at the time or had established mechanisms to address the concerns. The court also found the claim regarding the merger not being in the best interests of Teamsters Fund participants to be barred by res judicata due to prior state court decisions. Consequently, the court denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Pension FundsFund MergerPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentRes JudicataMulti-employer PlansFiduciary DutyMinimum Funding StandardsTax Qualification
References
12
Case No. 10-93-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1994

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The Subsequent Injury Fund appeals a judgment awarding Larry Milligan lifetime benefits for injuries sustained at work. Milligan suffered two ankle injuries in 1987 and a third in 1989, leading to the total loss of use of both feet. He sued the Fund for lifetime benefits after settling with the workers' compensation carrier. The jury found permanent, total loss of use of both feet. The Fund challenged its statutory liability for lifetime benefits and the court's refusal to submit a jury question on total and permanent incapacity. The appellate court affirmed, finding the first issue unpreserved and the second resolved by a statutory conclusive presumption of total and permanent incapacity for the loss of both feet.

Workers' Compensation LawSubsequent Injury FundLifetime BenefitsTotal Permanent IncapacityAnkle InjuriesStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJury InstructionsConclusive PresumptionOccupational Injuries
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Plaintiff Teamsters Local Union No. 182 (Local 182) filed an action against the New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund and the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the Funds) under 29 U.S.C. § 185. Local 182 sought a declaration affirming the existence of valid collective bargaining agreements between April 1992 and March 1994, which mandated grievance and arbitration procedures, and an order compelling the Funds to arbitrate layoff-related grievances. The Union contended there was a long-standing oral agreement to adhere to applicable provisions of the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA). The Funds moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the existence of any agreement with requisite definiteness. The court denied the summary judgment motion, affirming subject matter jurisdiction and finding that Local 182 presented genuine issues of material fact concerning the existence of a collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor DisputeUnion RightsGrievance ProcedureArbitrationSeniority RightsLayoffsNational Master Freight AgreementPension Benefits
References
24
Case No. 15-25-00134-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves an intergovernmental contract dispute between the Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund (Appellant) and Southwest Texas Junior College (Appellee). The College is seeking replacement cost value benefits under a self-insurance contract for property damage allegedly sustained during an April 2021 hailstorm. The College claims a waiver of the Fund’s governmental immunity under TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE § 271.152, asserting equitable theories of waiver and unconscionability, and intentional torts of fraud and bad faith to expand coverage beyond the express terms of the agreement. The Fund argued that its governmental immunity had not been waived for these claims and damages, emphasizing that statutory waivers are to be narrowly construed. The trial court partially granted the Fund's jurisdictional plea, dismissing claims for exemplary, consequential, or treble damages, but denied the plea regarding the College's equitable and intentional tort theories, viewing them as defensive in nature. The Fund appeals this partial denial, arguing that the Act's narrow immunity waiver does not extend to these theories which attempt to create coverage where none explicitly exists in the written contract.

Governmental ImmunityContract DisputeSelf-Insurance PoolRisk ManagementEquitable DoctrinesIntentional TortsWaiverUnconscionabilityTexas LawAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. No. 77 Civ. 4712 (MP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1978

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers and the National Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers (the Funds) sued Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Inc. (Hospital) to recover allegedly owed contributions based on collective bargaining agreements. The Hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the action was barred by a prior arbitration award between the Union (District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees) and the Hospital, which concerned the same contributions and was dismissed due to the Union's unreasonable delay. The District Court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, held that the arbitration award had res judicata effect. The court determined that the Funds were either in privity with the Union or acted as third-party beneficiaries subject to the same defenses as the promisee Union. Consequently, the court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Arbitration AwardRes Judicata DoctrineEmployee Benefit FundsCollective Bargaining DisputesSummary Judgment MotionHospital Labor RelationsUnion RepresentationERISA ClaimsPreclusionFederal District Court
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Walter Johnson, who had previously lost vision in his right eye, suffered an injury at work resulting in the loss of vision in his left eye, leaving him totally and permanently disabled. He received benefits from Texas Employer’s Insurance Association and the Second Injury Fund. Johnson and his wife then sued Texas Industries, Inc. for negligence. Both TEIA and the Second Injury Fund intervened, seeking subrogation rights. The trial court denied the Second Injury Fund's claim to subrogation, but the court of appeals reversed. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed whether the Second Injury Fund is subrogated to Walter Johnson's rights in his personal injury suit. The Court concluded that subrogation is a legislative creation and the statute funding the Second Injury Fund explicitly enumerates funding methods without including subrogation. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's decision, denying subrogation for the Second Injury Fund.

SubrogationSecond Injury FundWorkers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationExpressio Unius Est Exclusio AlteriusTotal DisabilityPersonal InjuryTexas Supreme CourtFunding MechanismsLegislative Intent
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Moneta Lynn Hill brought suit against her governmental employer’s self-insurance fund, Texas Council Risk Management Fund (the Fund), seeking uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) benefits after sustaining injuries in a work-related motor vehicle accident. Hill argued that UM/UIM coverage should be presumed due to the Fund's failure to reject it in writing, as mandated by the Texas Insurance Code. The Fund countered that the Insurance Code does not apply to self-insurance funds established by governmental units. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Fund, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that Article 715c of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes exempts governmental self-insurers from the Insurance Code's provisions. The court also deemed Hill's claims for subrogation offset and attorney's fees as moot and not ripe, respectively.

Self-insuranceGovernmental unitsUninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeSummary Judgment AppealStatutory InterpretationWorkers' CompensationInterlocal Cooperation ActAppellate Court DecisionRisk Management Fund
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Vera Martinez, an injured worker, sought compensation after a workplace injury combined with a pre-existing condition resulted in total permanent incapacity. The Industrial Accident Board initially awarded her limited compensation. Martinez appealed this decision, filing suit against her compensation carrier and, over seven months later, against the Second Injury Fund. The appellate court addressed whether the statutory 20-day period for filing suit after appealing an Industrial Accident Board decision applies to claims against the Second Injury Fund. The court held that this jurisdictional prerequisite applies, and because Martinez failed to timely file suit against the Second Injury Fund, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the Fund. Consequently, the judgment against the Second Injury Fund was reversed.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundTexas LawJurisdictionTimelinessStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureIndustrial Accident BoardPermanent IncapacityPolio
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1998

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Plaintiffs, The High View Fund, L.P. and The High View Fund, filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims against E. William Hall and Karen W. Hall for violations of federal securities laws, fraudulent inducement, Delaware Blue Sky laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract. The claims stem from the plaintiffs' $1 million investment in United Golf Properties, Inc. and the defendants' alleged misuse of the company's assets and misrepresentations in an Offering Memorandum. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court, presided over by District Judge Scheindlin, granted dismissal for the federal securities law claims and common law fraud claims, allowing leave to amend. Additionally, the conversion and breach of contract claims were dismissed with prejudice. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for the Delaware Blue Sky law claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractDelaware Blue Sky LawInvestment Fraud
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 5,409 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