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

Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Ammean

Richard J. Ammean sued Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. (Texas Contractors) and Bayer Corporation for a back injury sustained at work. Ammean, an employee of Texas Contractors working on Bayer's premises, had previously received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Contractors' insurer. The appellate court reversed the judgment against Texas Contractors, ruling Ammean's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act due to his receipt of benefits. However, the court affirmed the judgment against Bayer, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Bayer's negligence, through its supervisory control and its employee forklift driver, proximately caused Ammean's injury. The court also upheld the jury's damage award for future loss of earning capacity against Bayer.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy ProvisionNegligenceBorrowed Servant DoctrinePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsLoss of Earning CapacityEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2000

Rosenberg v. Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc.

Robert Rosenberg, an employee of an alarm company, was allegedly injured after tripping over cardboard at a construction site. He and his wife sued Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc. (the general contractor) and Dave Mims Fifth Generation Painting Contractors (a subcontractor) under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Mims but denied Krupinski's motion for similar relief. On appeal, the order was modified; Krupinski's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim was granted, as Krupinski established it had no authority to control the activity causing the injury. However, the motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly denied due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the accident occurred in a passageway or work area and whether specific regulations (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) or (2)) were violated, and whether Krupinski was still the general contractor at the time of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafe Place to WorkAppellate DivisionTriable Issue of FactLabor Law CompliancePremises LiabilitySubcontractor
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. v. Lytle

Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. appealed a Circuit Court judgment that granted workmen's compensation and medical expenses to Allen B. Lytle. The core issue was whether Lytle, a brick washer, was an employee or an independent contractor when he suffered an injury due to a scaffold collapse. The trial court deemed Lytle an employee, citing the defendant's right to control and terminate. However, the appellate court applied multiple tests, including control over work, method of payment (per job/thousand bricks), and who furnished tools and helpers. The Supreme Court found that Lytle largely operated independently, supplying his materials and labor, with limited supervision from Cromwell. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, classifying Lytle as an independent contractor, and dismissed the compensation claim.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusScaffold AccidentBrick CleaningControl TestRight of TerminationMethod of PaymentFurnishing ToolsTennessee Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheet Metal Division of Capitol District Sheet Metal, Roofing & Air Conditioning Contractors Ass'n v. Local Union 38 of the Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The plaintiffs, a coalition of sheet metal contractor associations, filed a lawsuit against Local Union 38 and a related employer association, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and labor laws. The core of the dispute was a collective bargaining agreement provision mandating that all sheet metal fabrication be performed within Local 38's geographical jurisdiction, which plaintiffs argued constituted an illegal trade barrier. Defendants countered that the provision was a lawful work preservation clause, protected under labor law exemptions. The court ultimately ruled that the challenged clause was neither a valid work preservation measure nor exempt from antitrust scrutiny. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a declaratory judgment, declaring the provision void and unenforceable due to its violation of both the National Labor Relations Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act.

AntitrustLabor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementWork Preservation ClauseSherman ActNLRADeclaratory JudgmentTrade BarrierGeographic JurisdictionSecondary Boycott
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. McIntosh

Billy McIntosh sustained a severe hand injury while operating a power roller machine at Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. He subsequently tested positive for marijuana, triggering a statutory presumption under Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Act that his drug use proximately caused the injury. The trial court, however, found that McIntosh successfully rebutted this presumption, concluding that the injury was proximately caused by an inexperienced coworker engaging the machine, not McIntosh's impaired reaction time. Interstate Mechanical Contractors, Inc. appealed this decision, arguing the trial court erred in its application of the statutory presumption and causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding that McIntosh had successfully rebutted the presumption.

References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vast Construction, LLC v. CTC Contractors, LLC

This opinion addresses a contract dispute between general contractor CTC Contractors and subcontractor Vast Construction. Vast appealed a judgment against it, arguing it did not breach the subcontract, and raised claims under the Texas Property Code's prompt payment and construction trust fund provisions, as well as challenging the award of attorneys' fees. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding that Vast breached the contract by abandoning the project. However, the court sustained Vast's fourth issue, ruling that attorneys' fees were improperly awarded to CTC under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 38.001 because Vast is a limited liability company, not an individual or corporation. The judgment was modified to remove all attorneys' fees for CTC, and affirmed as modified.

Contract disputeSubcontractor breachGeneral contractorTexas Property CodePrompt paymentConstruction Trust Fund ActAttorneys' feesLimited Liability CompanyAppellate courtJudgment modification
References
46
Case No. E2000-00159-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2000

U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty v. Waco Contractors, Inc.

This case addresses a dispute between U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty, an insurance company, and WACO Contractors, Inc., an employer, regarding workers' compensation insurance premiums. WACO Contractors had indicated an intent to exclude corporate officers from coverage in their application, and premiums were initially assessed accordingly. However, a subsequent audit by the insurance company resulted in a back-assessment of premiums, arguing that the statutory procedures for officer exclusion were not properly followed. The Court of Appeals found that the insurance company possessed superior knowledge of these statutory requirements and failed to adequately inform the employer of the necessary steps to effectuate their expressed intent. The court also clarified that the relevant workers' compensation statutes primarily concern employee rights and remedies, not contractual disputes over insurance premiums, and that the insurance agent acted as the agent for the insurer. Consequently, the Trial Court's judgment in favor of the insurance company was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceCorporate Officer ExclusionPremium DisputeStatutory InterpretationAgency LawInsurance ContractsNotice RequirementAppellate ReviewRemedial StatuteEquitable Construction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Contractors Ass'n v. METRO. TRANSIT AUTH. OF HARRIS CTY.

The Houston Contractors Association challenged the Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County's (Metro) Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. Metro's program mandated quotas for minority and female subcontractor participation, presuming social and economic disadvantage based on race and sex. The court found that Metro's use of racial and sexual classifications in its contracting program violated the American Constitution's equal protection clause by imposing arbitrary distinctions. The judge rejected Metro's justifications, including correcting historical wrongs and lowering costs, stating that the solution to racism is not more racism. The court granted judgment to the contractors, prohibiting Metro from implementing race, ethnicity, or sex-based contracting preferences.

Affirmative ActionRacial PreferencesEqual Protection ClauseGovernment ContractingDisadvantaged Business EnterpriseQuotasRacial DiscriminationSexual DiscriminationConstitutional LawSummary Judgment
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Corpus Christi v. Acme Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

Amber Electric Company and Acme Mechanical Contractors, Incorporated, subcontractors, sued the City of Corpus Christi, the owner of a public building project, after the prime contractor, La Man Construction, abandoned the project and its payment bond was discovered to be fraudulent. The subcontractors sought recovery from the City on theories of quantum meruit, governmental taking without compensation, and the City's breach of a statutory duty by negligently approving a bogus payment bond. The trial court found in favor of the subcontractors. On appeal, the court reversed and rendered judgment against the subcontractors on the governmental taking and breach of statutory duty claims, finding no compensable claim or statutory liability against the City. The quantum meruit claim was reversed and remanded for a new trial, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the City was reasonably notified that the subcontractors expected payment directly from the City.

Quantum MeruitGovernmental TakingStatutory DutyPayment BondSubcontractor LiabilityPrime Contractor DefaultSurety Bond FraudPublic Works ContractConstruction LawNegligence
References
27
Case No. 05-0272
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2009

Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. John Summers

This concurring opinion by Justice Willett in Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. John Summers addresses whether a premises owner can also qualify as a 'general contractor' under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, thereby asserting an exclusive-remedy defense against tort suits. The opinion emphasizes a plain-language reading of the statute, arguing that the Legislature's definition of 'general contractor' focuses on what a contractor does ('undertakes to procure the performance of work') rather than what it owns. Justice Willett critiques the court of appeals for relying on outdated definitions and extratextual arguments, highlighting that the 1989 legislative overhaul removed the 'contracted with another party' clause, which previously suggested a general contractor must be an intermediary. The opinion concludes that Entergy, by procuring work and providing workers' compensation coverage, meets the statutory criteria for a general contractor, and such a reading is not 'absurd' but aligns with the Legislature's intent for wider coverage.

Workers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationTexas LawExclusive RemedyGeneral ContractorPremises OwnerLegislative IntentJudicial ActivismConcurring OpinionStatutory Construction
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 2,663 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