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. 13-03-099-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Luciano Islas v. Central Ready Mix Concrete

Luciano Islas sued Central Ready Mix Concrete Company for injuries suffered while exiting a cement truck drum. The jury found Central Ready Mix 20% negligent and awarded Islas $290,000, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Central Ready Mix was negligent and its negligence was a proximate cause of Islas's injuries, given its knowledge of past accidents and failure to ensure safety procedures for a dangerous outsourced activity. The court reinstated the jury's verdict, holding Central Ready Mix 20% liable.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorForeseeabilityJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSafety ProceduresCement Truck
References
11
Case No. 2021-08-0990
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2022

Williams, Cornelius v. People Ready, Inc.

Cornelius Williams, an employee, injured his left knee at work. The employer, People Ready, Inc., failed to provide a panel of physicians, directing him to a walk-in clinic instead. After the clinic referred Williams to orthopedic surgeon Dr. John Lochemes, People Ready denied authorization and offered a belated panel. The Court ruled that People Ready's non-compliance with the statute made Dr. Lochemes the authorized treating physician, granting Williams's request for medical treatment. However, Williams's request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient proof of wage reduction. The case was referred to the Compliance Program for potential penalties against People Ready.

Workers' Compensation LawExpedited HearingMedical Treatment AuthorizationPanel Physician DisputeEmployer Non-ComplianceTemporary Disability BenefitsLeft Knee InjuryOrthopedic SurgeryMedical ReferralEmployer Responsibility
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Central Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas

Luciano Islas, an employee of independent contractor Eugene Taylor, sustained severe injuries while cleaning a concrete truck drum for Central Ready Mix Concrete Company, which lacked workers' compensation insurance. A jury initially found all parties partially at fault, but the trial court subsequently granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Central, holding Taylor solely liable. The court of appeals reversed this decision, but the Supreme Court of Texas overturned the appellate court's ruling, reinstating the original trial court judgment for Central. The Supreme Court emphasized that owners like Central generally owe no duty to ensure the safety practices of independent contractors' employees unless actual control is retained, and that the repair work was not inherently dangerous enough to impose a nondelegable duty. Therefore, Central was not held liable for Islas's injuries.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityDuty to WarnInherently Dangerous ActivityNondelegable DutyJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictTexas LawOccupational SafetyEmployer Liability
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Davis v. Labor Ready

Decedent, employed by Labor Ready, an employment agency, died in an automobile accident while being driven home from a temporary work assignment by a fellow Labor Ready employee, McKinley Barnes. Barnes was not working that day but volunteered to drive decedent and other employees, receiving a small payment from each employee for transportation. Claimant filed for workers’ compensation death benefits on behalf of decedent’s minor children, which were initially granted by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but subsequently reversed and disallowed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The central issue was whether the accident occurred within the scope of employment, specifically if Labor Ready had assumed responsibility for transporting its employees. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that Labor Ready did not have exclusive control of the conveyance, and therefore, the injuries were not sustained in the course of employment. The court also found no abuse of discretion by the Board in refusing claimant's rebuttal due to procedural deficiencies.

Workers' CompensationDeath Benefits ClaimScope of EmploymentCommuting AccidentEmployer Provided TransportationCarpooling ArrangementTemporary AgencyWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalAppellate AffirmationCausal Connection
References
13
Case No. 2015-08-0488
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2016

Wright, Ezell v. Labor Ready

Ezell Wright, an employee of Labor Ready, sustained a work-related back injury on October 22, 2014, while moving a copier. He initially received authorized treatment, but Labor Ready later ceased authorization, leading Mr. Wright to seek private medical care. Eventually, Labor Ready authorized Dr. Fereidoon Parsioon, a neurosurgeon, who recommended physical therapy and a return visit after releasing Mr. Wright to full-duty work. However, Labor Ready failed to authorize the follow-up visit and did not provide temporary disability benefits or light-duty work during his restrictions, prompting Mr. Wright to file for an Expedited Hearing. The Court found Mr. Wright entitled to continued medical treatment with Dr. Parsioon and awarded temporary disability benefits from October 22, 2014, to September 21, 2015, totaling $10,674.64, along with an attorney's fee of $2,134.93.

Workers' Compensation JudgeExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsLumbar StrainBack InjuryAuthorized Treating PhysicianAverage Weekly WageWeekly Compensation RateAttorney's Fee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angello v. Labor Ready, Inc.

Labor Ready, Inc. and its subsidiary Labor Ready Northeast, Inc., temporary employment firms in western New York, paid their 18,000 workers daily. Employees could choose payment by check or a cash voucher, redeemable at a Labor Ready cash dispensing machine (CDM) for a fee. The State Department of Labor investigated complaints in 1999 regarding unlawful wage deductions, including these CDM fees. The Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) initially found no violation of Labor Law § 193 (1), deeming the CDM charge a voluntary, separate transaction. However, the Department of Labor commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Appellate Division reversed, concluding the fee deduction and wage payment were inseparably connected and violated Labor Law § 193. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that the fee deduction, even if optional, constituted an unlawful deduction from wages under Labor Law § 193 (1) (b) and (2), and contravened the legislative intent to protect employees from coercive economic arrangements.

Wage deductionsLabor LawTemporary employmentCash vouchersEmployer feesStatutory interpretationVoluntary deductionsLegislative intentEmployee protectionCPLR Article 78
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hurst v. Labor Ready

Kenneth Hurst, a temporary laborer for Labor Ready, was fatally shot outside his employer's office while awaiting payment. His minor children subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, asserting that Hurst's death arose out of and in the course of his employment. The trial court sided with the plaintiffs, prompting Labor Ready to appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that the shooting was causally connected to Hurst's employment, occurring on the employer's premises and stemming from an altercation related to the employer's restroom policy.

Death benefitsEmployment causationWorkplace assaultCourse of employmentPremises liabilityStreet risk doctrineEmployer policyLabor ReadyEmployee paymentAppellate review
References
10
Case No. 2025-60-5156
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2025

CLENDENING, CANDICE v. NASHVILLE READY MIX

Candice Clendening, an employee, sought a panel of psychiatrists for a mental injury sustained after a cement mixer rollover crash where her brakes failed. The employer, Nashville Ready Mix, denied psychiatric treatment, arguing that the authorized orthopedist, Dr. Douglas, had not referred her for it and suggested a psychologist instead. The Court, weighing conflicting medical opinions, found Dr. Caruso's psychiatric evaluation more credible and persuasive due to his expertise and thorough examination. Consequently, the Court granted Ms. Clendening's request, ordering Nashville Ready Mix to provide a panel of psychiatrists for her work-related mental injury.

Mental InjuryPTSDMajor Depressive DisorderPsychiatric TreatmentMedical CausationExpedited HearingRollover CrashBrake FailurePhysician ReferralConflicting Medical Opinions
References
3
Case No. M2024-00467-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2025

Araceli Cordova v. Nashville Ready Mix, Inc.

This case concerns an attorney's fees dispute involving Appellants Araceli Cordova et al. and Appellee Rachel H. Wall, the sole beneficiary of deceased attorney Gary J. Hodges. The Appellants had terminated Attorney Hodges' representation in a wrongful death action, leading to a lien for his fees. After the Hodges Estate was closed, Ms. Wall was substituted as a party to pursue the claim. In a prior appeal (Cordova I), the court affirmed that the 'results obtained' by Attorney Hodges was a $400,000.00 settlement offer and remanded for recalculation of fees. However, a second Special Master disregarded this ruling, basing a $150,000.00 award on a $450,000.00 offer, which the trial court adopted. The appellate court affirmed Ms. Wall's substitution but vacated the $150,000.00 award, reaffirming the $400,000.00 settlement offer as the correct basis for the attorney's fee calculation and remanding for further proceedings.

References
16
Case No. 527101
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2019

Matter of Bell v. Glens Falls Ready Mix Co., Inc.

Walter Bell, a diesel mechanic/driver, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding his schedule loss of use (SLU) of his right arm. Bell sustained work-related injuries requiring surgery and received workers' compensation benefits. While a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found an 80% SLU, the Board, crediting Dr. Maloney's opinion, determined a 50% SLU of the right shoulder and added 10% for elbow defects, resulting in a 60% SLU of the right arm based on the New York State Guidelines. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the guidelines for calculating SLU awards for combined upper extremity injuries.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Right Arm InjuryShoulder InjuryElbow InjuryMedical EvaluationTreating PhysicianIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Appellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPermanent Impairment Guidelines
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 234 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