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
May 07, 1992

Cusano v. Staff

Plaintiff, a secretary, sued the owner of her office building for injuries sustained from a fall on ice and snow in the parking lot. The defendant, who was also the principal stockholder and managing officer of the plaintiff's employer, moved for summary judgment, claiming immunity as a coemployee under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6). The Supreme Court denied this motion, concluding the defendant's alleged tortious conduct was in his capacity as a property owner, not a coemployee. On appeal, the court affirmed, holding that coemployee immunity is limited to acts within the scope of employment. In this case, the defendant's duty of care arose purely from his role as the property owner, as the accident occurred in a common parking area not controlled by the employer.

Dual Capacity DoctrineCoemployee ImmunityWorkers' Compensation LawProperty Owner LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppealFall AccidentIce and SnowScope of Employment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workforce Commission v. Olivas

Ms. Maria Elena Olivas, a former employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, filed a workers' compensation claim after developing injuries in March 2008. She was subsequently dismissed from employment in May 2009, leading her to file a suit against the Commission for retaliatory discharge. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing that Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code mandated an unequivocal waiver of immunity, which it claimed was absent in the anti-retaliation provisions of Chapter 451. The trial court denied the Commission's plea. On appeal, the Commission contended that Section 311.034 abrogated existing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez*) that recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against state agencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the State Applications Act (SAA) still provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies, and that neither Section 311.034 nor the *Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman* decision altered this established legal analysis.

Sovereign ImmunityRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernment CodeLabor CodeLegislative WaiverState AgenciesStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kinsman v. McGill

The plaintiff, an employee of Oakvale Construction Company, sustained injuries during his employment and received workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently sued the defendant, who is the president and sole stockholder of Oakvale and owner of the property where the injury occurred, alleging Labor Law violations. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing immunity under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) as a coemployee. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment, finding the defendant immune. This appellate court affirmed that decision, holding that the defendant's status as an executive employee rendered him a coemployee, thus protected by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, regardless of his status as property owner.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyCoemployee ImmunitySummary JudgmentLabor Law ViolationsEmployer LiabilityCorporate Officer LiabilityReal Property OwnerAppellate ReviewEssex County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zimmerman v. Optica Manufacturing Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against defendant Martin Greshes. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained while dismantling an oven in a factory. The complaint against two corporate defendants had already been dismissed based on the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court found sufficient uncontroverted evidence that Martin Greshes was the plaintiff's coemployee, thus extending immunity from suit under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6) to him. The court also held that Martin Greshes' status as the owner of the premises did not negate his coemployee immunity. The appellate court affirmed the order.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCoemployee ImmunityWorkers' Compensation LawPremises OwnerAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyAffirmative DefenseDamages
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2006

Texas Ass'n of School Boards Risk Management Fund v. Benavides Independent School District

The Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning claims brought by the Benavides Independent School District. The School District had sued for breach of contract, torts (DTPA, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, fiduciary duties, negligence, gross negligence), and a declaratory action. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for contractual claims, citing a waiver of immunity under Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, as supported by Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco. However, the court reversed the trial court's order regarding the tort claims, ruling that governmental immunity from suit had not been waived for these claims, thereby dismissing them for lack of jurisdiction. The court also held that governmental immunity exists between political subdivisions unless expressly waived.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionContract ClaimsTort ClaimsInterlocal Cooperation ActLocal Government CodeWaiver of ImmunityPolitical SubdivisionsSchool District
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District v. Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund

This case addresses an insurance coverage dispute between Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District (Ben Bolt) and the Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund (the Fund). Ben Bolt sued the Fund after a claim for extensive water and mold damage was denied, leading the Fund to assert governmental immunity. The Supreme Court of Texas determined that the Fund is a distinct governmental unit, thereby entitled to governmental immunity. However, the Court concluded that Section 271.152 of the Local Government Code provides a clear and unambiguous statutory waiver of the Fund’s immunity from suit for breach of contract claims in this context. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Governmental ImmunityInsurance CoverageSelf-Insurance FundPolitical SubdivisionsInterlocal Cooperation ActBreach of ContractStatutory WaiverTrial Court JurisdictionDe Novo ReviewTexas Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Mexia v. Tooke

The City of Mexia contracted with J.E. Tooke and Sons for curbside collection, but later terminated the agreement citing budgetary constraints. Tooke sued the City for breach of contract, and the trial court denied the City's plea to jurisdiction and ruled in favor of Tooke. On appeal, the central question was whether section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code waives sovereign immunity for home-rule municipalities. The appellate court examined the statutory language and Supreme Court precedents on immunity waiver, concluding that the 'plead and be impleaded' language does not constitute a clear and unambiguous waiver. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that the City waived immunity through partial performance or by acting in a proprietary capacity, as solid waste removal is a governmental function. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityHome-Rule MunicipalitiesWaiver of ImmunityBreach of ContractTexas Local Government CodeGovernmental FunctionsProprietary FunctionsPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.

This case addresses post-trial motions concerning the liability of Atlantic Container Lines (ACL), a stevedore, to Bucyrus-Erie Co., a truck-crane manufacturer and third-party plaintiff. The central issue is whether ACL enjoys immunity from contribution or indemnity claims under 33 U.S.C. § 905, following a jury finding that both Bucyrus-Erie's negligent manufacturing and ACL's incompetent employee (Antonio Fuet) equally contributed to the injury of Adolfo Millan and death of Joseph Zapico, ACL's employees. ACL argued it was immune as a compensation-paying stevedore and lacked an indemnity agreement. The court found that Bucyrus-Erie's claim was not 'on account of' the employee injury, but rather for partial indemnification based on ACL's implied warranty of workmanlike performance or a quasi-contractual theory. The court concluded that extending third-party benefits or apportioning damages based on fault would not violate statutory immunity and would be equitable, especially given manufacturers' lack of control over stevedoring functions and increasing strict liability. Therefore, ACL's motion for judgment in its favor was denied, Bucyrus-Erie Co.'s motion to amend its pleadings was granted, and Celia Zapico's motion to strike the jury's finding of contributory negligence was denied.

Stevedore LiabilityMaritime IndemnityLongshoremen's ActThird-Party ClaimsProduct Manufacturer NegligenceEmployee IncompetenceContribution LawWarranty of Workmanlike PerformanceFederal Civil ProcedurePost-Trial Litigation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trizzino v. Mildank Taxi Corp.

The plaintiff was injured when a taxicab crashed into their office. The plaintiff filed a negligence action against their employer, a coemployee, and Mildank Taxi Corporation, the taxi owner. An earlier motion by the employer and coemployee for summary judgment was granted, citing the Workers’ Compensation Law. Mildank Taxi Corporation's subsequent motion for summary judgment was initially denied. This appellate court reversed that denial, granting summary judgment to Mildank Taxi Corporation and dismissing the complaint against it. The court found that no negligence was pleaded against Mildank, and vicarious liability was not applicable due to coemployee immunity under workers' compensation.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVicarious LiabilityCoemployee ImmunityAppellate ProcedureOwner LiabilityTaxi AccidentDismissal of Complaint
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burke v. Torres

Plaintiff was injured in a car accident while a passenger, driven by coemployee Martinez. His employer, J U & T Management, Inc., was uninsured for workers' compensation. After an initial workers' compensation award was vacated, plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit. Defendant Martinez sought to include a workers' compensation defense, arguing exclusive remedy, which was granted by Special Term. Plaintiff then moved to strike this defense, contending Martinez, as a coemployee, could not use it given the employer's lack of insurance. Special Term granted plaintiff's motion. This court reversed, holding that Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6) provides absolute immunity to coemployees from tort liability, even if the employer is uninsured, as the injured employee has recourse through the uninsured employers' fund against the employer.

Workers' Compensation LawCoemployee ImmunityUninsured EmployerExclusive RemedyVicarious LiabilityPersonal Injury ActionAutomobile AccidentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewAffirmative Defense
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,168 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