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. 13-99-271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2002

West, Randy and Antonia West v. Maintenance Tool and Supply Co., Inc. and Rene Rodriguez, Individually and as Representative of Maintenance Tool and Supply Co., Inc.

The appellants, Randy and Antonia West, appealed a default summary judgment granted in favor of appellees, Maintenance Tool & Supply Co., Inc. and Rene Rodriguez. The claims at issue were workers' compensation retaliation and defamation, along with sanctions imposed against West's counsel. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, finding that Maintenance Tool & Supply Co. established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for West's termination and that West had adequate notice of the hearing. The defamation claim was also affirmed for summary judgment due to judicial proceeding privilege. However, the court reversed the order imposing sanctions, ruling that the trial court abused its discretion by not providing notice and an evidentiary hearing as required by procedural rules before imposing sanctions.

Summary judgmentWorkers' compensation retaliationDefamationRule 13 sanctionsAbuse of discretionNotice of hearingMotion for new trialCausation employment lawJudicial proceeding privilegeAttorney conduct
References
35
Case No. 10-14-00132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2016

Tractor Supply Co. of Texas, L.P. v. Kenneth Edd McGowan

Kenneth Edd McGowan sued Tractor Supply Co. of Texas, L.P. for personal injuries sustained while working as a temporary employee at Tractor Supply's distribution center. McGowan was injured when a pallet of dog food was pushed off a rack by a Tractor Supply employee. The trial court found Tractor Supply liable and awarded McGowan damages, but Tractor Supply appealed, asserting an exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court determined that McGowan was considered an employee of Tractor Supply for workers' compensation purposes and that Tractor Supply was covered by an insurance policy obtained by Job Link Personnel Services, Inc., which included an Alternate Employer Endorsement. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Tractor Supply was entitled to the exclusive remedy defense, thereby barring McGowan's recovery.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyTemporary Employment AgencyEmployer-Employee RelationshipNegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAlternate Employer Endorsement
References
3
Case No. M2023-00249-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2024

Brian Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Company (Dissenting)

This dissenting opinion addresses a premises liability suit by Brian Coblentz against Tractor Supply Company. The central issue is whether Tractor Supply is Coblentz's statutory employer, which would preclude his tort claim due to workers' compensation's exclusive remedy provision. The majority concluded that Tractor Supply is a statutory employer, based on existing Tennessee caselaw. The dissenting judge argues that Tennessee caselaw has not adequately considered vendor-vendee relationships, like that between Tractor Supply and Coblentz's immediate employer, Stanley National (a product vendor), when determining statutory employer status. The dissent posits that applying the current framework to vendors improperly expands workers' compensation liability and reduces employee protections against negligence, advocating for further examination of this legal gap.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerPremises LiabilityVendor-Vendee RelationshipSubcontractor StatusExclusive RemedyDissenting OpinionContract LawTennessee LawTort Immunity
References
23
Case No. 2-04-065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tarrant County Hospital District D/B/A John Peter Smith Hospital v. GE Automation Services, Inc., F/K/A GE Industrial Systems Solutions, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., F/K/A GE Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company

Appellant Tarrant County Hospital District appealed a summary judgment granted to Appellees GE Automation Services, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company. The suit stemmed from a 1996 transaction where Appellant alleged Appellees provided a defective bus duct system, leading to contract, warranty, products liability, and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 2.725) barred the contract and warranty claims, overriding governmental immunity. Furthermore, the court held that the economic loss rule precluded Appellant's tort claims, as the alleged damages constituted economic losses to the subject matter of the contract itself.

Summary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEconomic Loss RuleBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyProducts LiabilityNegligenceUniform Commercial CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
34
Case No. W2018-00084-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2021

Milan Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. F/K/A Milan Express, Inc. v. Navistar, Inc.

This case addresses the application of the economic loss doctrine to fraudulent inducement claims and the definition of 'goods' under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Milan Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. (Milan) sued Navistar, Inc. and Volunteer International, Inc., alleging fraud and TCPA violations related to its purchase of over 200 Navistar ProStar trucks with MaxxForce engines. Milan claimed Navistar misrepresented the trucks' reliability and performance. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, holding that the economic loss doctrine bars Milan's fraudulent inducement claim because the misrepresentations concerned the quality of goods in a contract between sophisticated commercial parties. The Court also affirmed that Milan's TCPA claim failed as the trucks were not 'goods' as defined by the TCPA for commercial entities. Consequently, the plaintiff's award of attorney's fees under the TCPA was set aside, and Volunteer International, Inc. was awarded attorney's fees on appeal.

Economic Loss DoctrineFraudulent InducementTennessee Consumer Protection ActCommercial ContractsProduct LiabilityWarranty ClaimsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewTruck ManufacturingEngine Defects
References
71
Case No. 05-18-00188-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2019

Global Supply Chain Solutions, LLC v. Riverwood Solutions, Inc., and Lori Austin

This case involves a dispute between Global Supply Chain Solutions, LLC (Global Supply) and Riverwood Solutions, Inc. (Riverwood) and Lori Austin. After failed merger talks, Global Supply sued Riverwood for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference, also seeking injunctive relief against Austin. Key issues included whether Austin was an employee or independent contractor, if Riverwood breached non-solicitation clauses, and the application of the 'inevitable disclosure' doctrine for trade secrets. The trial court granted summary judgment for Riverwood and Austin and struck Global Supply's expert witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the summary judgment rulings or the striking of expert witnesses, and upheld the award of attorney's fees to Austin.

Breach of ContractTrade Secrets MisappropriationTortious InterferenceIndependent ContractorNon-Solicitation AgreementSummary JudgmentExpert Witness TestimonyInevitable Disclosure DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
30
Case No. 03-02-00246-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2004

Reliant Energy, Incorporated Office of Public Utility Counsel And Gulf Coast Coalition of Cities/Magic Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. Medina Electric Cooperative, Inc. Rayburn Country Electric Cooperative, Inc. And City of Bryan v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Consumer Owned Power Systems City of Houston Texas Industrial Energy Consumers State of Texas And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc./Public Utility Commission of Texas And Reliant Energy, Incorporated

This case concerns appeals from a district court's judgment affirming a Public Utility Commission (PUC) final order that set cost-of-service rates for Reliant Energy, Inc.'s transmission and distribution utility (TDU). Appellants, including Reliant Energy, Office of Public Utility Counsel, and various consumer groups, challenged the PUC's decisions on rate base calculations, return on equity, and operational expenses. The district court had largely affirmed the PUC's order, finding only one aspect to be a prohibited advisory opinion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reversed the district court's judgment regarding the inclusion of $107.3 million for the interconnection of Merchant Plant 4, citing a lack of substantial evidence. In all other respects, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded the Merchant Plant 4 issue to the Commission for further proceedings.

Utility RegulationElectricity RatesPublic Utility CommissionCost-of-ServiceRate BaseReturn on EquityConsolidated Tax SavingsTransmission and Distribution UtilityAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yklik Medical Supply, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

Plaintiff Yklik Medical Supply, Inc., a medical supply provider, sued Allstate Insurance Company to recover $317 in unpaid medical bills for equipment supplied to its assignor, Tammy Agosto. Yklik moved for summary judgment, asserting proper bill submission and Allstate's failure to timely pay or deny the claim. Allstate argued that the charges exceeded the Workers' Compensation fee schedule and that a partial payment had been made. The court found that Yklik established a prima facie case. The central issue was whether Allstate's fee schedule defense was precluded due to its failure to issue a timely denial within 30 days as mandated by Insurance Law § 5106 (a) and 11 NYCRR 65-3.5. The court ruled that since Allstate waited 56 days to send its denial, it was precluded from raising the fee schedule defense, and therefore, summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff.

No-fault insurancesummary judgmenttimely denialfee schedulepreclusion ruleinsurance lawmedical supplybilling practicespersonal injury protectionassignor
References
19
Case No. 01-12-00216-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2014

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery L.P. v. Maintenance Supply Headquarters, LP

Appellants Hand & Wrist Center, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery, L.P. appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Maintenance Supply Headquarters, L.P., concerning a breach of contract claim. The dispute arose from a "Letter of Guarantee" signed by Maintenance Supply for medical services provided to an injured employee, Daniel Contreras, whose workers' compensation claim was denied. Maintenance Supply argued estoppel and the applicability of the Labor Code's exclusive remedies provision. The Court of Appeals found the estoppel defense inapplicable and, crucially, ruled that Labor Code section 408.001(a)'s exclusive remedies provision applies only to employees and their beneficiaries, not to health care providers. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentWorkers' compensationExclusive remedyHealth care providersStatutory interpretationTexas Labor CodeEstoppelLetter of GuaranteeAppellate review
References
10
Case No. M2023-00249-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2025

Brian Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Company

This case addresses whether a retail store (vendee) can be considered a 'statutory employer' of a product vendor's (Stanley National) injured employee (Brian Coblentz) under Tennessee's workers' compensation statutes. The Tennessee Supreme Court holds that the term 'subcontractor' in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-113(a) refers to a person or entity performing labor or services, not a product vendor primarily engaged in the sale and ancillary delivery of merchandise. The Court adopted a 'predominant purpose' test to determine if a mixed contract is predominantly for goods or services. Applying this test, the Court found the relationship between Stanley National and Tractor Supply was one of vendor-vendee, meaning the services performed by Coblentz were incidental to the sale of goods. Consequently, Tractor Supply is not deemed Coblentz's statutory employer and is not shielded by the exclusive remedy provision, reversing the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanding the case.

Workers' Compensation LawStatutory EmployerVendor-Vendee RelationshipPredominant Purpose TestExclusive Remedy ProvisionTennessee Supreme CourtContract LawGoods and ServicesSubcontractor DefinitionPremises Liability
References
62
Showing 1-10 of 603 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