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
Jan 24, 2002

Machado v. City of New York

The defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, regarding damages for personal injuries. The case involved a construction worker who sustained severe injuries, including a spinal fracture and knee destruction, after a trench wall collapse in 1996, for which he obtained summary judgment against the City under Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's inadequate verdict on damages, ordering a new trial unless the City agreed to increased awards for past and future pain and suffering. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, agreeing that the jury's award deviated materially from reasonable compensation. This decision upholds the conditional directive for a new trial on damages.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentTrench CollapseLabor LawDamagesPain and SufferingJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialSpinal Fracture
References
5
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewittes & Sons, Inc. v. Perlow

This judicial opinion addresses two primary legal questions concerning the propriety of directing judgment within an order confirming a referee’s report on injunction bond damages, and the validity of specific damage awards. The court ruled that Section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, enacted after the relevant bond was issued, should not apply retrospectively, making the original judgment entry erroneous. Furthermore, it was determined that damages should be confined to parties explicitly named in the bond and who actively opposed the injunction motion. The court found that awards for counsel fees incurred solely in opposing the injunction motion, as well as costs associated with defending a counterclaim or trial preparation, were improper because they were not directly caused by the injunction itself. Additionally, the defense of a non-party in another court was deemed outside the bond's scope. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order, vacated the judgment, and remitted the case to an official referee for a re-assessment of damages consistent with its findings, awarding costs to the appellant.

Injunction bondDamages assessmentReferee's reportStatutory interpretationCivil Practice ActCounsel feesCounterclaimAppellate reviewReversal of judgmentRemittal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Medley v. A.W. Chesterton Co.

This case involves William Medley's suit against his former employer, A.W. Chesterton Company, concerning breach of a severance agreement, workers' compensation retaliation, outrageous conduct, and punitive damages. The trial court initially found the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) inapplicable, granted summary judgment on the retaliation claim, and directed verdicts for Chesterton on outrageous conduct and punitive damages, but for Medley on breach of contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the non-application of ERISA and the ruling on the retaliation claim. However, it reversed the directed verdict on outrageous conduct, remanding that aspect for further proceedings, while upholding the decision on punitive damages and breach of contract.

Employment LawSeverance PayERISA PreemptionRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationOutrageous ConductPunitive DamagesContract BreachEmotional DistressAppeal
References
8
Case No. 13-13-00331-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2014

Raul Flores, Inc. v. Adrian D. Rodriguez and L & F Distributors, L. L. C.

In this Texas Court of Appeals case, Raul Flores, Inc. (Flores) appealed the trial court's decision in a commercial property damage dispute against Adrian D. Rodriguez and L&F Distributors, L.L.C. (L&F). Flores claimed damages to its car wash canopy and concrete pavement caused by L&F's trucks. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's directed verdict on pavement damage claims due to insufficient causation evidence and the proper exclusion of Flores's expert testimony as unreliable. The court also found no reversible error in the exclusion of lay causation testimony and upheld the directed verdict on exemplary and vicarious liability claims related to the pavement.

Commercial Property DamageDirected VerdictExpert WitnessLay WitnessCausationAppellate ReviewTexas LawEvidence AdmissibilityNegligenceGross Negligence
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saenz v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters

Justice Spector dissents, arguing that the majority mischaracterizes damages awarded to Saenz. Spector believes that Saenz's uncompensated future medical expenses were directly caused by Fidelity's fraudulent and bad faith conduct, which induced her to settle her workers' compensation claim. The dissent emphasizes that Saenz's action is for common-law fraud and bad faith, not an increase in benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act, and therefore, her damages should be upheld despite the absence of physical injury caused directly by Fidelity's actions. Spector highlights the unequal bargaining power between insurers and insureds, asserting that the Act should not preclude Saenz from recovering damages for uncompensated medical expenses resulting from Fidelity's tortious conduct, otherwise, injured workers would lack meaningful recourse against unscrupulous insurers.

fraudbad faithworkers' compensationuncompensated medical expensestortious conductinsurance settlementunequal bargaining powerdissenting opiniondamageslegal recourse
References
5
Case No. 01-11-00871-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Kimberley Soukup v. Sedgwick Claims Mangement Services, Inc. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC D/B/A BSRO Bridgestone Americas, Inc. Firestone Polymers, LLC and Stephen T. Smith

Kimberley Soukup appealed the trial court's summary judgments, which were granted against her claims of wrongful discharge and tortious interference with employment. Soukup alleged that her employer, Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc., constructively terminated her for refusing to engage in illegal activities directed by Bridgestone entities and Stephen T. Smith concerning workers' compensation claims. The Court of Appeals, First District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded that Soukup failed to present evidence that her employer directed her to commit a criminal act which she refused to perform, and declined to expand the "Sabine Pilot" exception to include third-party directives. Furthermore, Soukup's claim for tortious interference lacked evidence of recoverable actual damages, as mental anguish damages are generally not permissible for such claims in Texas.

Wrongful DischargeTortious InterferenceEmployment At-WillSabine Pilot ExceptionWorkers' Compensation ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityThird-Party InterferenceDamages
References
40
Case No. 14-06-00513-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2008

Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Harris County, Texas

This case involves an appeal by the Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) against Harris County, Texas. Harris County sued Metro to recover property damages and its statutory subrogation interest after a Metro bus struck a tractor driven by Spencer Townsell, a Harris County employee. Harris County had paid workers' compensation benefits to Townsell and his medical care providers. Metro appealed the trial court's judgment, contending errors in denying its motion for a directed verdict, submitting an improper jury charge, and admitting certain evidence. The appellate court affirmed the property damage award but reversed and remanded the remainder of the judgment due to the trial court's failure to properly instruct the jury on the reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses and the causal relationship of damages, emphasizing that a subrogee carrier bears the same burden of proof as the injured employee in a direct suit against a tortfeasor.

Subrogation LawTexas Labor CodeCivil Practice and Remedies CodeJury Charge InstructionsMedical Expense ProofCausation StandardAppellate ReversalPartial AffirmanceRemand for New TrialDamages Calculation
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1993

Rodriguez v. Margaret Tietz Center for Nursing Care, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Restor Technologies, Inc., was injured while dismantling a hoist on the roof of a building owned by Margaret Tietz Center for Nursing Care, Inc., when he was struck by a falling steel beam, resulting in a severe knee injury requiring multiple operations and causing permanent disability. The trial court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against Tietz Center, and Tietz Center was granted a directed verdict against Restor based on contractual and common-law indemnification, with a jury initially awarding $600,000 in damages. On appeal, the court rejected contentions that Labor Law § 240 was inapplicable and that the plaintiff's recovery was limited to Workers' Compensation benefits. However, the appellate court found the damages award excessive and conditionally modified the judgment. The judgment was affirmed only if the plaintiff stipulated to reduce the verdict from $600,000 to $300,000, otherwise a new trial on damages only would be granted.

Personal InjuryFalling ObjectElevated WorksiteIndemnificationExcessive DamagesConditional AffirmationDamages ReductionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 240
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,771 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