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. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2002

This Discovery Order, arising from consolidated actions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, addresses disputes between the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs and defendant National Commercial Bank (NCB). Magistrate Judge Maas ruled on the scope of limited jurisdictional discovery concerning NCB's contacts with the United States, an alleged 1998 audit, and customer bank records. The court granted discovery for a six-year period preceding the lawsuits regarding NCB's U.S. presence and ordered NCB to investigate and produce any existing 1998 audit. However, requests for underlying audit documents and specific customer bank records tied to Al Qaeda were denied due to an insufficient prima facie showing of conspiracy.

Discovery DisputeJurisdictional DiscoveryPersonal JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAMinimum ContactsConspiracy TheorySeptember 11 AttacksNational Commercial BankSaudi Arabian Banks
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Charlie Mason, a 53-year-old truck driver, died of a heart attack while working a night shift in freezing weather. His widow filed a worker's compensation claim, asserting the heart attack was an occupational disease or an accidental injury resulting from his strenuous work conditions and long hours. The jury determined Mason had a heart attack but found it did not occur in the course of his employment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's 'take nothing' judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions regarding the definition of 'occupational disease' or the refusal to include a specific definition of 'accidental injury'.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackOccupational DiseaseCourse of EmploymentJury InstructionsAccidental InjuryAppellate ReviewCausationTexas LawTruck Driver
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Dickie

This worker's compensation case concerns James Rhabb Dickie, an appellee, who suffered a heart attack while working as a carpenter. He sued for total and permanent disability benefits and medical expenses, claiming the heart attack was work-related. The appellant, Western Casualty and Surety Co., appealed the trial court's judgment, arguing insufficient evidence of 'strain, overexertion, or shock' and a defective jury charge. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding adequate evidence that Dickie's physically taxing work and the work environment causally contributed to his heart attack, and that the jury instruction on causation was proper.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackOccupational InjuryDisability BenefitsMedical ExpensesCausationStrainOverexertionJury VerdictAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Helton v. Food Lion, Inc.

The plaintiff, a produce supervisor for Food Lion, Inc., suffered a heart attack four days after an abrasive confrontation with his new supervisor, Mr. Anderson. The trial court denied worker's compensation benefits, finding that the heart attack did not arise out of and in the course of employment. Medical testimony indicated job stress was a contributing factor, but also noted the plaintiff's pre-existing severe arteriosclerotic heart disease and other risk factors. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the stress, occurring four days prior to the heart attack, was of a general nature and not the "acute, sudden, or unexpected emotional stress directly attributable to employment" required for a compensable accident.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackEmotional StressCausationPre-existing ConditionScope of EmploymentMedical EvidenceJob-related StressDenial of BenefitsTennessee Supreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stone v. City of McMinnville

Charles Stone, a McMinnville police officer, suffered a heart attack and sought workers' compensation benefits, relying on a statutory presumption that heart disease for law enforcement officers is an employment-related injury. The City of McMinnville challenged this, presenting medical evidence from three physicians who attributed Stone's heart attack to lifestyle factors such as high cholesterol, hypertension, and smoking, rather than job stress. While Stone initially established a prima facie case with the statutory presumption, the court found that the competent medical evidence successfully rebutted this presumption. Consequently, Stone failed to prove a direct causal link between his employment and his heart attack, as no specific physical or emotional event precipitated the condition. Therefore, the Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel's decision, which reversed the trial court's award of benefits and dismissed the suit, was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackPolice OfficerCausationStatutory PresumptionRebuttalMedical EvidenceLifestyle FactorsEmployment-related InjuryTennessee Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Agress & Brouillet

Petitioner sought an order to direct arbitration against the respondents after they allegedly refused to permit the petitioner to complete a contract for work, labor, and services on the respondents' premises. The contract included a specific arbitration clause covering disputes concerning the construction/meaning of specifications or the true value of extra work. The respondents opposed, arguing that the issue of contract termination or its justification was not covered by the arbitration clause. The court, citing precedent, determined that the arbitration clause was limited and did not encompass disputes regarding a breach of contract by either party. Consequently, finding no arbitrable dispute under the contract, the court denied the motion to direct arbitration.

ArbitrationContract DisputeScope of Arbitration ClauseMotion to Compel ArbitrationBreach of ContractLimited Arbitration Clause
References
3
Case No. Dkt. 319, Dkt. 146, Dkt. 105
Regular Panel Decision

Fisher v. Halliburton

This case addresses motions for summary judgment filed by defendants (Halliburton, KBRI, KBRSI, Brown & Root Services, and SEII) against plaintiffs (Fisher, Lane, and Smith-Idol). The plaintiffs were civilian drivers for fuel convoys in Iraq, working for the defendants under a contract with the U.S. Army, and sustained injuries during insurgent attacks in April 2004. The core legal question revolves around the scope of the Defense Base Act’s (DBA) exclusivity provision, specifically whether the plaintiffs' injuries qualify as "accidents" or "willful acts of third parties" under the DBA, thereby limiting their remedies to workers' compensation. The court ruled that for plaintiff Smith-Idol, the injury was accidental, granting summary judgment to the defendants and confirming DBA as the exclusive remedy. However, for plaintiffs Fisher and Lane, the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether their injuries were "expected" by the defendants, given numerous prior warnings and ongoing attacks, thus denying summary judgment in part. The court also clarified that the attacks were not "willful acts of a third party directed against an employee because of his employment" in the narrow sense intended by the statute, as the insurgents were targeting all Americans, not specifically truck drivers. All named defendants were confirmed as employers under the DBA. The court, on its own motion, certified the controlling question of the DBA’s exclusivity provision for immediate interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit and stayed the cases of Fisher and Lane.

Defense Base Act (DBA)Longshore Act (LHWCA)Summary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealStatutory InterpretationEmployer ImmunityAccidental InjuryIntentional Tort ExceptionWar Hazards Compensation Act (WHCA)Fifth Circuit Precedent
References
61
Case No. ADJ9012138
Regular
Aug 12, 2016

PINON vs. DIRECT RESOURCE SOLUTION, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

In *Pinon v. Direct Resource Solution*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration. This action was taken to allow the WCAB further time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented in the case. The WCAB emphasized that this additional review is necessary to ensure a just and reasoned decision. Consequently, all future correspondence related to the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGrant of ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSOffice of the CommissionersDistrict OfficeWCJProposed SettlementCompromise and Release
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrish v. Premier Directional Drilling, L.P.

This case involves a collective-action lawsuit filed by William Parrish and other plaintiffs against Premier Directional Drilling, L.P., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to misclassification as independent contractors rather than employees. The core issue was whether the plaintiffs, who worked as Directional Drillers Consultants (DDs) and Measurement While Drilling Consultants (MWDs), were employees or independent contractors under the FLSA's economic reality test. The Court analyzed five factors: degree of control, relative investments, opportunity for profit and loss, skill and initiative, and permanency of the relationship. Ultimately, the Court found that the plaintiffs were employees, concluding that Premier exerted significant control over their work and compensation, and their investments in the job were substantially less than Premier's. Consequently, the Court denied Premier's motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, and awarded the plaintiffs $363,422.00 in compensatory and liquidated damages.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Employment MisclassificationIndependent Contractor StatusEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentOvertime CompensationBack WagesLiquidated DamagesEconomic Reality TestOil and Gas Industry
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 3,375 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