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. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. 2025-80-2327, State File No. 860110-2025
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2026

Cisneros, Jose v. Brandenburg Industrial Service Co.

The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a trial court's denial of summary judgment, remanding the case for an order consistent with its opinion. The employer contended the employee's petition for benefits was untimely, arguing that the trial court erred in applying equitable estoppel based on the insurer's alleged delays. While the trial court found a disputed issue of material fact regarding the insurer's handling, the Appeals Board concluded there was no evidence of affirmative misrepresentation or concealment by the employer to warrant equitable estoppel. The Board emphasized that an employer has no affirmative duty to advise an employee on the statute of limitations. Consequently, the employer's motion for summary judgment should have been granted because the employee failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact that would prevent the application of the statute of limitations defense.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardTimely FilingClaim DenialEmployer LiabilityInsurance Adjuster ConductMisrepresentationConcealment
References
13
Case No. 01-07-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

in Re Bison Building Materials, Ltd.

Bison Building Materials, Ltd., a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, established an employee injury plan with an arbitration clause. Employee Tracy Sambrano was injured, received benefits, but then sued Bison for negligence, despite signing a post-injury waiver. The trial court denied Bison's motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the court held that Sambrano had accepted the arbitration terms by continued employment and that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws that would prevent enforcement. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to compel arbitration, finding Bison had not waived its right, and dismissed Sambrano's interlocutory appeal.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas General Arbitration Act (TGAA)Workers' Compensation NonsubscriberEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanERISA PreemptionMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealWaiver of ArbitrationContract Defenses
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

Plaintiff, a subcontractor for Massa Construction, Inc., initiated an action against defendant surety to secure payment on a labor and materials bond after Massa ceased payments due to alleged breaches by plaintiff. Defendant denied plaintiff's claim, asserting plaintiff materially breached its subcontract by failing to make pension contributions, provide releases, and obtain a separate payment bond. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of compliance and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a material breach. The court noted that alleged non-payments to suppliers only affected the subcontract price, not Massa's obligation to continue performance, and found no requirement for plaintiff to pay pension contributions to the Iron Workers District Council or obtain a separate payment bond from glaziers unions.

SubcontractorSurety BondPublic Improvement ProjectLabor and Materials BondPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractPension ContributionsPayment ObligationsGlaziers Unions
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tahini Investments, Ltd. v. Bobrowsky

Plaintiff appealed two orders concerning a purchase-money mortgage and alleged misrepresentation during the sale of a 93-acre farm. Defendant, the seller, had represented the property as a horse farm, but industrial waste drums were later discovered. Plaintiff claimed defendant knew of the dumping site and failed to disclose it, constituting actionable misrepresentation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, denying knowledge and citing a disclaimer clause in the contract. The appellate court found triable issues of fact, stating that concealment of material facts can be misrepresentation, and a disclaimer does not always preclude claims if facts are peculiarly within the seller's knowledge. The court reversed the summary judgment, denying defendant’s motion and granting plaintiff’s motion to depose a nonparty witness.

MisrepresentationReal Estate SaleProperty DisclosureSummary Judgment ReversalMaterial Fact ConcealmentDisclaimer ClausePeculiar Knowledge DoctrineDeposition of Nonparty WitnessIndustrial Waste DiscoveryDutchess County Court
References
12
Case No. 08-10-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

State v. Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC

The State of Texas sued Cemex Construction Materials South, L.L.C. for conversion, breach of contract, and trespass to try title, asserting ownership of valuable building materials on four parcels of public school lands in El Paso County. The State claimed these mineral rights were reserved under the 1895 Land Sales and Mining Acts during original sales in 1900, 1906, and 1912. The trial court denied the State's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Cemex's motion. On appeal, the court reviewed the rulings de novo and found that the State unequivocally reserved mineral rights. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, granted the State's motion for partial summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mineral RightsPublic School LandsSummary JudgmentState of TexasConversion ClaimBreach of ContractMining Act of 1895Land Sales Act of 1895Real Property LawStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. 04-15-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2015

Rhino Contractors, LLC v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LP

Rhino Contractors, LLC, appeals a trial court's default judgment in favor of Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. Vulcan sued Rhino for breach of contract or on a sworn account, alleging Rhino failed to pay $454,846.76 for materials supplied for its construction business, plus 18% interest and attorney's fees. The default judgment included these amounts along with prejudgment interest and court costs. Rhino argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for new trial because it never received proper notice of the lawsuit, thus failing to file an answer. Rhino also asserts it has a meritorious defense, including claims of double billing and improper credits on invoices from Vulcan, and that granting a new trial would not prejudice Vulcan. Furthermore, Rhino contends the damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees awarded were unliquidated and not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence, as Vulcan's affidavit lacked an itemized account and its attorney's fee affidavit did not meet required evidentiary standards.

Default JudgmentBreach of ContractSworn AccountMotion for New TrialService of ProcessCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseDamagesPrejudgment InterestAttorney's Fees
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. JTM Materials, Inc.

This case addresses motor carrier liability, specifically whether a licensed motor carrier leasing equipment is vicariously liable for the negligence of the equipment driver under Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR). Plaintiff Grant Morris was injured in an accident involving a tractor-trailer driven by an intoxicated Jerry Lee Largent. Morris sued JTM Materials, Inc. and DCV, Inc. (JTM), alleging vicarious liability, respondeat superior, direct liability for negligence, joint enterprise, and joint venture. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to JTM on several claims. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in part, ruling that an interstate motor carrier is vicariously liable under FMCSR for a driver's negligence and finding material fact issues regarding negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and entrustment claims. Conversely, the court affirmed the summary judgment for JTM on Morris's claims related to respondeat superior, civil conspiracy, joint venture, and joint enterprise, ultimately affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Motor Carrier LiabilityVicarious LiabilityNegligent HiringNegligent EntrustmentRespondeat SuperiorFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsEquipment Lease AgreementStatutory EmployeeSummary Judgment ReviewProximate Cause
References
95
Case No. WR-83,135-01
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2015

Granger, Bartholomew

Bartholomew Granger, the applicant, is filing objections to the convicting court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in his writ of habeas corpus application. He argues that the convicting court failed to conduct an adequate fact-finding process, leaving numerous controverted and material factual issues unresolved. Key issues include potential prosecutorial misconduct regarding withheld evidence (his daughter's journal) and claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and present crucial mitigating evidence. Granger also points out inaccuracies in his trial counsel's affidavits and criticizes the court's practice of adopting the State's proposed findings wholesale. Consequently, Granger requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand his application to the convicting court for a full and fair opportunity to address his claims.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselBrady violationprosecutorial misconductcapital murderpost-conviction reliefjudicial reviewfact-findingdue processTexas
References
19
Case No. 04-98-00477-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1999

Bryan Barnhill v. Integrated Health Services, Inc.

Bryan Barnhill appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Integrated Health Services, Inc. Barnhill suffered a back injury at work and subsequently sued his employer, initially naming Normandy Terrace, Inc. and later Riverside Healthcare, Inc. and Preferred Care, Inc., before finally identifying Integrated Health Services, Inc. as his employer. Integrated moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, which Barnhill countered with a fraudulent concealment defense. The appellate court found that Barnhill presented genuine issues of material fact regarding fraudulent concealment, given that Integrated was aware of the lawsuit and had business connections with other named defendants. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary Judgment AppealWorkers' Compensation DisputeStatute of LimitationsFraudulent Concealment DefenseEmployer IdentificationDiscovery IssuesAppellate ProcedureEquitable EstoppelPleading AmendmentsNon-subscriber Employer
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,059 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