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

Fuentes v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co.

The case involves an appeal by Ruben Fuentes and the Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund against Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company and its affiliates, challenging a trial court's summary judgment. Fuentes was injured by a conveyor belt at Adcock Gin, which was manufactured by Continental and installed under its supervision. The central legal issue was the applicability of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.009, a ten-year statute of repose for improvements to real property. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the conveyor belt qualified as an 'improvement' and Continental had 'constructed' it, thus invoking the statute's protection against liability for the injury.

Statute of ReposeSummary Judgment AppealProduct LiabilityConveyor SystemReal Property ImprovementConstruction SupervisionManufacturer LiabilityAnnexation to RealtySubrogation ClaimWorker Injury

References

Case No. 11-00-00404-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 01, 2001

Ruben Fuentes and Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company, Inc.

Ruben Fuentes and Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company, Inc. et al. Fuentes was injured in 1995 while working at Adcock Gin by a conveyor belt manufactured by Continental and installed in 1981. The Fund, having paid benefits, acquired a subrogation interest. Appellants argued that the conveyor belt was not an 'improvement' and Continental did not 'construct' it under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. ' 16.009, a ten-year statute of repose. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Continental's supervision of the installation of the bolted-down conveyor belt made it an 'improvement' and that Continental 'constructed' it within the meaning of the statute, relying on precedents like Sonnier v. Chisholm-Ryder Company, Inc. and Reames v. Hawthorne-Seving, Inc.

Statute of ReposeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConveyor Belt InjuryWorkers' Compensation SubrogationProduct LiabilityImprovement to Real PropertyAnnexationConstruction SupervisionTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Texas Integrated Conveyor Systems, Inc. v. Innovative Conveyor Concepts, Inc.

This case involves claims by Texas Integrated Conveyor Systems, Inc. against its former employees and Innovative Conveyor Concepts, Inc. for issues including breach of non-compete agreements, misappropriation of trade secrets, fraud, and tortious interference. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's summary judgment rulings and discovery sanctions. It concluded that Texas Integrated was denied due process regarding certain no-evidence summary judgments and that the trial court erred in granting most traditional summary judgments against Texas Integrated. The court also found the discovery sanctions imposed were an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in part, reversed and vacated it in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentMotion for RehearingDue ProcessDiscovery SanctionsNon-compete AgreementTrade SecretsFraudConversionTortious InterferenceCivil Conspiracy

References

Case No. CV-23-1672

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 24, 2025

Matter of Vujeva v. Dairy Conveyor Corp.

The claimant, Jozo Vujeva, sustained injuries to both shoulders while working as a mechanic. Following permanency evaluations, a dispute arose regarding the schedule loss of use (SLU) percentages, with the claimant's physician and the carrier's consultant providing differing findings. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers' Compensation Board rejected the claimant's physician's findings due to non-compliance with the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment, specifically regarding the use of a goniometer and repeat measurements. The Board instead credited the carrier's consultant's findings, awarding a 34.5% SLU of the right shoulder and a 27% SLU of the left shoulder. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and that opinions not supported by objective findings consistent with the guidelines may have little evidentiary value.

Workers' Compensation LawSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Shoulder InjuryMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Range of Motion (ROM)GoniometerMedical Impairment GuidelinesEvidentiary ValueExpert Medical OpinionSubstantial Evidence

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Reames v. Hawthorne-Seving, Inc.

Roger Reames and his family appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Hawthorne-Seving, Inc. and Grubb Construction, Inc. in a personal injury lawsuit. Reames was injured on a conveyor belt at his workplace, Marazzi USA, Inc., more than ten years after its installation. The defendants invoked a statute of repose, Section 16.009 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which limits liability for construction defects to ten years after substantial completion. The Reameses argued the conveyor was not an "improvement" to real property and that the defendants did not "construct" it, or alternatively, that the statute was unconstitutional. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the conveyor was a constructive improvement to realty and Hawthorne-Seving, as the general contractor, was considered to have constructed it. The court also found Grubb Construction, Inc. was either not involved in the installation or was protected by the statute of repose.

Statute of ReposePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentConveyor Belt InjuryConstruction DefectReal Property ImprovementProducts LiabilityNegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeConstitutional Law

References

Case No. 2017-08-1148

Regular Panel Decision

May 02, 2018

Oglesby, Edward v. United Parcel Serices, Inc.

Mr. Edward Oglesby, a plant engineering mechanic for UPS, sought medical and temporary disability benefits following a workplace injury on September 4, 2017, sustained while repairing a conveyor belt. UPS denied the claim, arguing Mr. Oglesby violated a safety rule by not powering off the machine. The Court determined UPS failed to prove it would likely prevail on its defense, finding Mr. Oglesby's actions aligned with accepted "live conveyor repair" procedures and training. As a result, the Court awarded Mr. Oglesby medical benefits but postponed a decision on temporary disability benefits, citing insufficient evidence regarding the duration of his disability at the time of the hearing.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability DenialSafety Rule Violation DefenseLive Conveyor RepairEmployer PolicyWorkplace InjuryCausal ConnectionBurden of ProofTennessee Workers' Compensation Claims

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 20, 1999

Siby v. A&Z Car Wash Sales

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, affirmed an order granting summary judgment to the defendant-respondent in a personal injury action. The plaintiff, an employee of a car wash, sustained injuries when his sleeve and hand were caught in a conveyor chain while attempting to correct an alignment issue. The court found no evidence that the defendant's installed wiring and electrical system caused the accident. The plaintiff admitted not deactivating the conveyor system despite accessible on/off switches and a lockout key. Expert testimony regarding insufficient shutdown time and the need for automatic stops was deemed irrelevant or conclusory, as the plaintiff had the means to fully deactivate the system. No industry or regulatory standards were provided to support claims of inadequate warning time.

Personal InjuryCar Wash AccidentSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemElectrical SystemWorkplace SafetyNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyOn/Off Switch

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 19, 1998

Martin v. A-1 Compaction, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Anthony Macera, Inc., and A-l Compaction, Inc., dismissing claims related to the wrongful death and personal injuries of a decedent. The decedent was fatally injured while attempting to collapse a wood chipper's conveyor belt by jumping on it. The plaintiff's cross-motions for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability were denied. The Appellate Court affirmed the order, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to special hazards arising from elevated work sites or hoisted materials. The court found that the decedent's situation did not involve such special elevation risks, as the conveyor belt could have been folded from the ground.

Wrongful DeathPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionElevation RiskConveyor BeltWood ChipperSpecial HazardsLabor Law § 240 (1)

References

Case No. ADJ13228350

Regular

Jul 14, 2025

Paul Janikowski vs. Tesla Motors, Inc.

Applicant Paul Janikowski, a production associate at Tesla Motors, Inc., suffered severe leg and ankle injuries in 2019 due to a machine malfunction involving a conveyor and skids. He alleged serious and willful misconduct by Tesla, arguing that the company failed to provide adequate safety protocols and reduced the job from a two-person task to a one-person task, forcing him to cross an energized conveyor. Despite defendant's arguments that safety protocols were in place and the operation met industry standards, the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) found that the applicant met his burden of proof. The Appeals Board denied Tesla's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding of serious and willful misconduct by the employer.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardWCJCal OSHAMercer-FraserJohns-ManvilleHawaiian PineappleDowden

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 16, 1998

White v. ABCO Engineering Corp.

This case involves plaintiff Kenneth White, who was injured after reaching into a conveyor through a four-inch hole cut by an entity other than the defendant, ABCO Engineering Corp. White moved to reargue a previous summary judgment in favor of ABCO. The District Court, presided over by Judge Parker, revisited its earlier denial of ABCO's summary judgment motion. The court determined that the substantial alteration of the conveyor by a third party was the sole proximate cause of White's injury, overriding any alleged design defects by ABCO. Citing New York and New Jersey precedents, the court affirmed that a manufacturer's responsibility does not extend to preventing injuries caused by significant, unforeseeable modifications made by others. Consequently, ABCO's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Product LiabilityProximate CauseMaterial AlterationSummary JudgmentManufacturer's DutyForeseeabilityNew York LawNew Jersey LawConveyor BeltIndustrial Accident

References

Showing 1-10 of 33 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Fuentes v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co.

Statute of ReposeSummary Judgment AppealProduct LiabilityConveyor SystemReal Property ImprovementConstruction SupervisionManufacturer LiabilityAnnexation to RealtySubrogation ClaimWorker Injury

References

Case No. 11-00-00404-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 01, 2001

Ruben Fuentes and Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company, Inc.

Statute of ReposeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConveyor Belt InjuryWorkers' Compensation SubrogationProduct LiabilityImprovement to Real PropertyAnnexationConstruction SupervisionTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Texas Integrated Conveyor Systems, Inc. v. Innovative Conveyor Concepts, Inc.

Summary JudgmentMotion for RehearingDue ProcessDiscovery SanctionsNon-compete AgreementTrade SecretsFraudConversionTortious InterferenceCivil Conspiracy

References

Case No. CV-23-1672

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 24, 2025

Matter of Vujeva v. Dairy Conveyor Corp.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Reames v. Hawthorne-Seving, Inc.

Statute of ReposePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentConveyor Belt InjuryConstruction DefectReal Property ImprovementProducts LiabilityNegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeConstitutional Law

References

Case No. 2017-08-1148

Regular Panel Decision

May 02, 2018

Oglesby, Edward v. United Parcel Serices, Inc.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 20, 1999

Siby v. A&Z Car Wash Sales

Personal InjuryCar Wash AccidentSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemElectrical SystemWorkplace SafetyNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyOn/Off Switch

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 19, 1998

Martin v. A-1 Compaction, Inc.

Wrongful DeathPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionElevation RiskConveyor BeltWood ChipperSpecial HazardsLabor Law § 240 (1)

References

Case No. ADJ13228350

Regular

Jul 14, 2025

Paul Janikowski vs. Tesla Motors, Inc.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardWCJCal OSHAMercer-FraserJohns-ManvilleHawaiian PineappleDowden

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 16, 1998

White v. ABCO Engineering Corp.

Product LiabilityProximate CauseMaterial AlterationSummary JudgmentManufacturer's DutyForeseeabilityNew York LawNew Jersey LawConveyor BeltIndustrial Accident

References

Showing 1-10 of 33 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.