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

Suarez v. Sherman Gin Co.

Lucio Suarez sued Sherman Gin Co. and others for personal injuries sustained in a cotton ginning machine accident that occurred after Sherman Gin Co. was dissolved. Suarez sought to recover damages under the trust fund theory from former directors, officers, and shareholders, and through the de facto merger doctrine against Continental Conveyor & Equipment Co. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trust fund theory does not apply to post-dissolution claims, and no de facto merger occurred. Texas Employers' Insurance Association's claim for workers' compensation and medical benefits paid to Suarez was also denied.

Corporate DissolutionSuccessor LiabilityTrust Fund TheoryDe Facto MergerPost-Dissolution ClaimsProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentTexas Business Corporation ActAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between American Machine & Foundry Co. & Fay

The case involves three motions: the employer, American Machine & Foundry Company, seeks to stay arbitration initiated by Amalgamated Machine, Instrument & Metal Local 475 (union local); the union local seeks to compel arbitration; and William S. Abernathy, claiming to be chairman of the shop committee, seeks to intervene in support of the employer. The employer is caught between two factions of the union, each claiming authority over the grievance committee. The court grants Abernathy's motion to intervene, finding it a proper case under the Civil Practice Act. The court determines that the central issue of which committee has the authority to administer the collective bargaining agreement's grievance provisions is a triable issue of fact that cannot be decided on affidavits. Therefore, a jury trial is ordered for an early date in January 1949 to determine this authority, and all arbitration proceedings are stayed until then.

arbitration disputelabor lawcollective bargaininggrievance procedureunion representationintra-union conflictcourt interventionstay proceedingsjury trialprocedural law
References
7
Case No. 2015-02-0061
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2016

Cotton, Alan v. HUMACare, Inc.

This Workers' Compensation case was filed by Mrs. Cotton, the surviving spouse of Alan Cotton, seeking death benefits after Mr. Cotton's fatal fall while working. The primary legal question addressed was whether HUMACare, Inc., a professional employer organization (PEO), qualified as an employer obligated to provide these benefits. The Court determined that HUMACare was indeed a co-employer of Mr. Cotton with Central USA. However, the Court also found that HUMACare bore no wage liability, as it only processed payroll from Central USA, thus absolving it of liability under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-211(a). Consequently, Mrs. Cotton's claim for widow benefits against HUMACare was denied and the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Death Benefits ClaimProfessional Employer Organization (PEO)Co-Employment LiabilityWage Liability ApportionmentInsurance Carrier ResponsibilityEmployer DefinitionBurden of ProofCompensation HearingClaim DenialDismissal With Prejudice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cotton v. Henger

This case originated from a gas explosion at the Baker Hotel in Dallas, Texas, on June 21, 1946, which killed hotel employee William Eaton Cotton. Cotton's survivors and Texas Employers Insurance Association, who paid workers' compensation benefits, filed a negligence action against Contractor W. C. Henger. The trial court granted summary judgment for Henger, claiming he was an agent, not an independent contractor. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, finding that fact questions existed regarding Henger's status as an independent contractor, his responsibility for the plumbing work, and the applicability of res ipsa loquitur. On rehearing, the court clarified its decision, sustaining the motion to leave undisturbed the trial court's judgment that Henger take nothing against the Baker Hotel in his third-party action, but reaffirming the reversal and remand of the summary judgment in favor of Henger against the plaintiffs.

Independent ContractorSummary JudgmentNegligenceGas ExplosionWorkers' CompensationThird-Party ActionRes Ipsa LoquiturPremises LiabilityConstruction ContractScope of Employment
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Waxahachie Cotton Warehouse

Jess Carpenter sued Mrs. N. A. McMillan, doing business as Waxahachie Cotton Warehouse, for minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The trial court found that neither party was engaged in interstate or foreign commerce, and even if they were, Carpenter's employment as a night watchman at a cotton warehouse in Waxahachie, Texas, fell under the "area of production" exemption of the Act. The appellate court, presided over by Justice HALE, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court concluded that Carpenter failed to establish his engagement in interstate commerce and that the evidence sufficiently supported the application of the agricultural exemption, considering the local origin of the cotton and the small number of employees.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAWage and HourInterstate CommerceAgricultural ExemptionArea of ProductionCotton WarehouseNight WatchmanTexas LawEmployment Law
References
7
Case No. E2001-00258-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2001

George Tipton v. Axis Fabrication & Machine Co.

This personal injury case involves George Michael Tipton, who was injured by a metal cutting machine operated by Jeff Thomas at Axis Fabrication & Machine Company. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants, citing a failure to prove lack of reasonable care. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the defendants breached their duty of care by not warning Tipton of potential dangers and failing to replace a machine guard. The appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for a jury to consider the defendants' negligence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

personal injurypremises liabilitydirected verdictnegligenceduty of careforeseeabilityworkplace injurymachine operationwarning signsvicarious liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Venture Cotton Cooperative and Noble Americas Corp. v. Shelby Alan Freeman

Two groups of cotton farmers sued Venture Cotton Cooperative and Noble Americas Corp. for fraudulent inducement related to cooperative marketing contracts, seeking damages and statutory remedies. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, which the trial court denied, finding the arbitration agreements unconscionable. The court of appeals affirmed, citing the agreements' purported waiver of statutory rights and one-sided attorney's fees. This Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the limitation of statutory remedies was severable and the one-sided attorney's fee provision was not unconscionable per se. The case was remanded for the court of appeals to address other unconscionability arguments not previously considered.

ArbitrationFAAUnconscionabilityContract LawStatutory RemediesAttorney's FeesSeverabilityDTPACotton FarmersCooperative Marketing
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raynor v. MOORES MACHINE SHOP, LLC

Joseph Lynn Raynor was electrocuted while welding on the premises of Moores Machine Shop, LLC. His parents, Jimmy Raynor and Ruby Lewis, individually and as representatives of Joseph’s estate, sued Moores for negligence and gross negligence. Moores moved for summary judgment, asserting claims were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act (arguing Joseph was an employee) or Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 95 (arguing Joseph was an independent contractor). The trial court granted summary judgment for Moores. On appeal, the Raynors contended the trial court erred in granting summary judgment. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding Joseph's employment status, precluding summary judgment under both grounds. The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation ActIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentNegligenceGross NegligenceWorkplace FatalityElectrocution AccidentRight of Control TestTexas Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1983

Claim of McIntosh v. International Business Machines, Inc.

Claimant suffered a back injury on September 29, 1977, while working for International Business Machines, Inc. She continued to work until October 21, 1977, but subsequently experienced frequent absences due to disability. The Workers' Compensation Board made varying determinations regarding her disability, ultimately classifying it as a permanent partial disability with a 75% earning capacity. Despite conflicting medical opinions from numerous doctors, the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The decision appealed from found that claimant had a permanent partial disability, and the appellate court affirmed this decision.

Permanent Partial DisabilityEarning CapacityMedical TestimonyConflicting EvidenceBoard DeterminationBack InjuryEmployment InjuryAffirmed DecisionJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 359 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