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

Claim of Le Myre v. La Belle

This case involves appeals from two Workers’ Compensation Board decisions. The Board found that the claimant, a 15-year-old groom, suffered a disabling injury within the course of employment and established an employer-employee relationship with Stephen M. La Belle, owner of Steve Belle’s Racing Stable. La Belle contended the claimant was a volunteer, denying any payment. The Board, however, credited the claimant’s testimony regarding the nature of the work, payment, and La Belle's control, finding substantial evidence for an employer-employee relationship. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions.

Employer-Employee DisputeSubstantial Evidence ReviewCredibility AssessmentAppellate AffirmationMinor EmploymentEquine IndustryOccupational InjuryWage Non-Payment ClaimSaratoga CountyBoard Decision Appeal
References
3
Case No. 03-99-00502-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2000

Clayton Miller, D/B/A Trucks, Etc. v. Bell County, Texas, and Dan Smith, Sheriff of Bell County, Texas

Clayton Miller, operating as Trucks, Etc., sued Bell County, Texas, and Sheriff Dan Smith for damages. Miller claimed agents of the Bell County Sheriff's Department negligently released a truck he held title to, in violation of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court granted summary judgment to the appellees based on sovereign and official immunity. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, stating that Miller failed to establish legislative permission to sue for damages, and merely alleging a violation of law does not waive sovereign immunity for a tort claim seeking damages.

Sovereign ImmunityOfficial ImmunitySummary JudgmentTort ClaimNegligenceTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate ReviewGovernmental ImmunityDamages Claim
References
15
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyna v. Bell

Tony Reyna, an employee of Lavonne Bell, d/b/a City Iron and Metal Company, sustained a back injury while lifting a heavy industrial battery. Bell, who did not carry workers’ compensation insurance, was sued for personal injury by Reyna, alleging negligence for failing to provide a safe workplace, proper supervision, and adequate equipment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Bell, prompting Reyna's appeal. The appellate court examined the disputed facts, including Reyna's claims of repeatedly requested but uninstalled equipment like a chain hoist and limited forklift availability. The court determined that these disputed facts raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding Bell's alleged negligence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceEmployer LiabilityUnsafe WorkplaceEquipment FailureWorkers' Compensation AbsenceBack InjuryAppellate ReviewRemand
References
3
Case No. 2-04-352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2006

Linda C. Bell v. VPSI, Inc. and Fort Worth Transportation Authority

Linda C. Bell sued VPSI, Inc. and Fort Worth Transportation Authority for vicarious liability after sustaining injuries in a van accident while a passenger in a van driven by her husband, Homer Bell. The van was part of a vanpool program operated by the defendants. The trial court granted summary judgment for VPSI and the Transportation Authority, a decision Bell appealed, while also denying her motion for partial summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Homer Bell was an independent contractor and not acting within the course and scope of employment at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the court found insufficient contractual control to impose vicarious liability on the defendants and rejected the joint enterprise theory.

Vicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorCourse and Scope of EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorContractual ControlJoint EnterpriseVanpool ProgramVehicular AccidentAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Boyce Iron Works, Inc.

Boyce Iron Works sued Southwestern Bell Telephone and others for property damages resulting from a fire that occurred during a burglary. The fire started after a silent burglar alarm system, connected via a telephone line provided by Southwestern Bell, malfunctioned. Boyce alleged negligence and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. A jury initially found in favor of Boyce, awarding significant damages. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that Boyce failed to obtain a finding that a defect in the telephone equipment caused the alarm malfunction, and that there was no evidence that Southwestern Bell's alleged misrepresentations or course of conduct were a 'producing cause' of Boyce’s damages. The court rendered judgment that Boyce take nothing from Southwestern Bell.

Property DamageBurglar Alarm SystemNegligenceDeceptive Trade Practices ActProducing CauseAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSpecial IssuesJury FindingsReversed Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Garza

David Garza, a 20-year employee of Southwestern Bell, suffered a work-related injury. Initially, only an oral reprimand was recommended for a workplace incident. However, after Garza filed a workers' compensation claim, management initiated a discriminatory investigation into his safety record, ultimately leading to his disqualification from driving positions and subsequent termination. The jury found that Southwestern Bell discriminated and terminated Garza in retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, awarding him compensatory and punitive damages. Southwestern Bell appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, and damages, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of a causal link between the claim and the adverse employment actions, and of malice.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationEmployment DiscriminationWrongful TerminationJury VerdictCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyMental AnguishRemittitur
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hogue v. Blue Bell Creameries, L.P.

James Earl Hogue sued Blue Bell Creameries for retaliatory discharge, alleging he was fired in violation of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act after sustaining a work-related back injury and filing a claim. Hogue’s initial suit resulted in a jury verdict for Blue Bell, and his subsequent motions for new trial and judgment non obstante veredicto were denied by the trial court. On appeal, Hogue contended the trial court erred by overruling his motions because the evidence showed his workers’ compensation claim was a factor in his termination, and by refusing his requested jury instruction regarding causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that Hogue failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and any error in the jury charge was harmless given the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Hogue’s discharge provided by Blue Bell.

Workers' Compensation ActRetaliatory DischargeWrongful TerminationJury InstructionsPrima Facie CaseCausal ConnectionCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEmployment DiscriminationTexas Workers' Compensation
References
24
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05862 [152 AD3d 806]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2017

Phillips v. Taco Bell Corp.

The plaintiff, Rachina Phillips, sustained personal injuries after boiling water spilled on her right foot while preparing hot foods within the scope of her employment at a Taco Bell restaurant. She initiated an action against Taco Bell Corp. and Yum! Brands, Inc., alleging negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the plaintiff's employer, Taco Bell of America, LLC, was a subsidiary or sister company and that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy, or that they lacked ownership/control over the premises. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, determining that the affidavits submitted by the defendants did not qualify as documentary evidence under CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and failed to conclusively establish a defense or refute the plaintiff's factual allegations for both CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and (7).

Personal InjuryNegligenceCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary EvidenceMotion to DismissAppellate ProcedureAlter Ego LiabilityWorkers' Compensation DefensePremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Artco-Bell Corp. v. Liberty-Mutual Insurance Co.

This case addresses whether an employer's liability insurance policy, which covers worker's compensation benefits, extends to cover damages an employer must pay for wrongfully discharging an employee under Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat.Ann. art. 8307c. Artco-Bell was found liable for $5,000 for discharging Jesse Schrader due to his worker's compensation claim. Artco-Bell sought coverage from Liberty Mutual, arguing that these damages fell under "compensation and other benefits required by the workman’s compensation law." The court, led by Chief Justice Cornelius, determined that worker's compensation law primarily addresses physical injuries and related benefits, not damages arising from wrongful termination. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the insurance policy did not cover Artco-Bell's liability for wrongful discharge.

Employer liabilityinsurance coveragewrongful dischargeworker's compensationTexas Civil Statutesstatutory interpretationinsurance policyappellate reviewTexas lawemployment law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 226 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