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

Claim of Blanchard v. Eagle Nest Tenancy In Common

Claimant's decedent, a superintendent for Eagle Nest Tenancy In Common, died in an unwitnessed one-car motor vehicle accident on the employer's premises. His widow filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, arguing his death was causally related to his employment. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed this finding, prompting an appeal by the employer's insurance carrier. The carrier contested that the accident occurred "in the course of employment," despite testimony suggesting the decedent intended to address maintenance issues after returning home. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding sufficient evidence to support that the accident occurred in the course of employment, especially given the presumption afforded to unwitnessed accidents within the scope of employment under Workers' Compensation Law § 21.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsEmployment CausalityMotor Vehicle FatalityOn-Premises AccidentWorkers' Compensation Board AppealScope of EmploymentUnwitnessed Accident PresumptionJudicial ReviewAppellate Division AffirmationInsurance Carrier Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

BML Stage Lighting, Inc. v. Mayflower Transit, Inc.

This case addresses whether a carrier can assert a lien on property owned by a third party who was not involved in the shipping contract. Mayflower Transit, Inc. claimed a lien on lighting equipment belonging to BML Stage Lighting, Inc. and Carbine Management, Inc. after the lessee, SportsLab, Inc., failed to pay transportation and storage fees and declared bankruptcy. The trial court sided with Mayflower, but BML appealed. The appellate court examined both contractual and common law lien claims. It determined that no contractual lien existed because BML was a stranger to Mayflower's contract with SportsLab, and there was no evidence of apparent authority. The court also ruled that Mayflower acted as a contract carrier, not a common carrier, in this specific instance, thus precluding a common law lien. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the judgment, finding no valid lien, and remanded for a new trial on BML's conversion claims.

Carrier's LienContract LawCommon Law LienApparent AuthorityShipping ContractThird-Party LiabilityConversionMootness DoctrineStandard of ReviewInterstate Commerce Act
References
38
Case No. 14-18-00668-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2019

Ralph Winston Merrill III v. Travis County, Self-Insured Carrier

This case involves an appeal from the dismissal of a suit on jurisdictional grounds, stemming from a dispute over death benefits under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Appellant Ralph Winston Merrill III claimed entitlement to death benefits as the common-law husband of Kristin McLain, a Travis County flight nurse who died in a work-related fall. Travis County, the self-insured carrier, denied the marriage's validity and asserted McLain's parents were the sole beneficiaries. Merrill prevailed at the administrative level, but filed his own suit for judicial review in the 353rd District Court, despite being the prevailing party. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, agreeing that Merrill, as the prevailing party, was not aggrieved and thus lacked standing for judicial review.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsJurisdictionStandingCommon-Law MarriageAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureTexas Labor CodeSelf-Insured Carrier
References
18
Case No. 09-23-00203-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2025

Jermaine Thomas v. Iron Horse Terminals, L.L.C.

Jermaine Thomas appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Iron Horse Terminals, L.L.C. (IHT). Thomas, a train conductor, was injured while working for IHT and sought remedies under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging IHT was a common carrier. IHT denied FELA applicability, arguing it was a workers' compensation subscriber and not a common carrier. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that IHT did not meet the criteria of a common carrier under FELA, specifically lacking common ownership with a railroad, contractual relationship for common carrier functions, and remuneration from a common carrier. Consequently, Thomas's FELA claim was not applicable.

FELACommon CarrierSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationInterstate CommerceRail ServiceEmployer LiabilityTexas LawAppellate ReviewLone Star Factors
References
13
Case No. 2021-08-0425
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2022

Cole, Mason v. R & L Carriers

Employee Mason Cole sought medical and temporary disability benefits for a low-back injury sustained when his forklift ran off the dock. The employer, R&L Carriers, contested benefits, citing Mr. Cole's alleged noncompliance with treatment and lack of medical proof of causation, noting his termination for violating company attendance policy. The Court found Mr. Cole likely to prevail on his claim for medical benefits, concluding that past noncompliance was not clearly established and an MRI ordered by the authorized physician was never authorized by R&L. However, the Court denied temporary disability benefits at this time, as Mr. Cole was never taken completely off work by a physician and provided no medical proof of continued restrictions after his employment termination.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityLow Back InjuryForklift AccidentNoncomplianceCausationDegenerative Disc DiseaseMRI
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verson Allsteel Press Co. v. Carrier Corp. & Carrier Air Conditioning

Verson Allsteel Press Company appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Carrier Corporation and Carrier Air Conditioning Company. The case involves an employee, Steven Paul Gandy, who was injured operating a press brake manufactured by Verson. Gandy received worker's compensation and subsequently sued Verson, securing a judgment. Verson then sought indemnification from Carrier based on terms in the press brake's production order. Carrier argued the indemnification was barred by Texas Civil Statutes due to a lack of an express written agreement. The appellate court found that the indemnity clauses did constitute an express written agreement, thus reversing the summary judgment and remanding the case for trial on the merits.

IndemnificationWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentContract LawProduct LiabilityTexas Civil StatutesExpress AgreementReversed and RemandedPress Brake InjuryThird-Party Claim
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc. v. Cook Truck Lines, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute where Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc., a shipper, sought an injunction against common carriers and Teamsters Local 327. The carriers, including Cook Truck Lines and Hoover Motor Express, refused customary service to Kerrigan due to Local 327 employees not crossing picket lines set by another union (Iron Workers) at Kerrigan's plants. Kerrigan argued this refusal violated state common law and statutes regarding a carrier's public duty. The Chancery Court granted a permanent injunction, which Local 327 appealed, asserting federal labor law preemption and contractual rights to refuse service. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the union's conduct was not a federally protected activity or unfair labor practice, nor was there an exclusive federal remedy, thus preserving state court jurisdiction to enforce common carrier duties.

Labor DisputeInjunctionCommon Carrier DutyState Court JurisdictionFederal PreemptionNational Labor Relations ActPicket LineUnfair Labor PracticesConcerted ActivitiesContract Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. Transamerica Ins. Group

An employee (Plaintiff) who sustained an on-the-job back injury sued the employer's workers' compensation carrier (Defendant) for alleged bad faith, negligence, and outrageous conduct in handling her claim, seeking compensatory and punitive damages. The Plaintiff claimed the carrier failed to provide a choice of physicians, delayed benefits, and denied authorization for exploratory surgery. The Circuit Court dismissed the action, holding that the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act barred such an independent action. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning that under Tennessee law, the insurer is equated with the employer, and the Act's statutory penalty for delayed payments is the sole remedy for mishandling claims, thereby precluding common law claims for damages.

Exclusive RemedyWorkers' Compensation ActBad Faith ClaimNegligence ClaimOutrageous ConductPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesInsurer as EmployerStatutory InterpretationMedical Treatment Denial
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gore v. Amoco Production Co.

This case concerns a common law personal injury action brought by an employee against her employer. The plaintiff was injured after falling over a roll of carpeting at work and subsequently received a settlement from the employer's compensation carrier under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Despite this, she asserted a common law action, arguing the employer was liable in a dual capacity as both employer and occupier of the premises. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the 'dual capacity' doctrine based on strong precedent from Cohn v. Spinks Industries, Inc., which emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Law represents the exclusive remedy in Texas.

Dual Capacity DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ActExclusivity ProvisionCommon Law ActionSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewLegal Precedent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1985

Landi v. Carrier Corp.

The claimant, a 61-year-old brake press operator, suffered an acute back strain and aggravation of degenerative disc disease, leading to total disability for a period in 1982. He subsequently retired in February 1983, asserting his inability to perform even a light-duty inspector's job offered by his employer due to his ongoing partial disability. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant's retirement was directly attributable to his continuing permanent partial disability, a finding supported by his doctor's reports and his own testimony. The employer and its carrier appealed the Board's decision, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Back StrainDegenerative Disc DiseaseTotal DisabilityPartial DisabilityVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceOrthopedist
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,932 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