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. M2020-01368-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2021

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

All Access Coach Leasing, LLC, a tour bus leasing company, appealed an agency's determination, affirmed by the chancery court, that it misclassified its tour bus drivers as independent contractors rather than employees for unemployment tax purposes. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found substantial and material evidence supporting the agency's decision that the drivers were employees under the 'ABC test' of the Tennessee Employment Security Law, specifically failing Part B. This was due to the drivers performing required pre-trip and post-trip duties, such as inspections and cleaning, on the company's premises, which meant their services were not performed 'outside of all' of the taxpayer’s places of business.

Workers' CompensationUnemployment TaxIndependent ContractorEmployee MisclassificationABC TestCommon Law TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawDue ProcessStatutory Interpretation
References
46
Case No. No. 08-13-00348-CV (TC#12-09-802)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2015

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This ad-valorem tax case concerns the taxation of natural gas pipeline compressor packages. Appellants, EXLP Leasing LLC and EES Leasing LLC, lease these compressor packages. The trial court initially ruled that the packages qualified as heavy equipment but found the taxable situs in Loving County and deemed the statutory formulas for market value and tax (Texas Tax Code Sections 23.1241 and 23.1242) unconstitutional as applied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed the constitutionality of these statutes and the determination of taxable situs. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding on constitutionality, holding that the statutes are not unconstitutional as applied, and affirmed the trial court's ruling that the taxable situs was indeed in Loving County.

Ad Valorem TaxHeavy EquipmentTaxation LawMarket Value AssessmentStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawTaxable SitusTexas Tax CodeAppraisal DistrictProperty Tax
References
16
Case No. 13-09-00213-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2010

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a breach of contract dispute between Unique Staff Leasing, LLC, and Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd. (Appellants) and Richard Onder (Appellee). The core of the dispute was an 'Independent Contractor and Commission Agreement' and prior oral agreements regarding commission payments. Unique argued that the agreements were unenforceable due to the statute of frauds and that Onder committed a prior material breach. The court rejected Unique's arguments, finding that the written agreement was not subject to the statute of frauds as its terms allowed performance within one year and that the jury's implicit finding of no material breach by Onder was reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, as modified, which awarded Onder $52,025.11 in lost commissions and additional attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractStatute of FraudsElectronic AgreementIndependent ContractorCommission AgreementJury VerdictLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyContract InterpretationOral Agreement
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case concerns a breach of contract dispute between Mustang Pipeline Co. (Mustang) and Driver Pipeline Co. (Driver) regarding a pipeline construction project. Mustang sued Driver for failing to complete work timely, while Driver counterclaimed for wrongful termination. The jury initially found both parties breached, but the Supreme Court of Texas clarified that an express jury finding on materiality is not required when 'time is of the essence,' determining Driver's breach was material as a matter of law. This discharged Mustang from its obligations, invalidating the wrongful termination claim. However, Mustang failed to provide sufficient evidence that its claimed damages were reasonable and necessary. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment for Driver, rendered judgment that Driver take nothing, and reversed the award of attorney's fees to Driver, upholding the denial of damages to Mustang.

Breach of ContractMaterial BreachTime is of the EssenceWrongful TerminationContract DamagesReasonableness of CostsAttorney's FeesJury InstructionsAffirmative DefenseJudgment Notwithstanding Verdict
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The case concerns a dispute between EXLP Leasing, LLC (EXLP) and the Galveston County appraisal district regarding the constitutional validity of a statutory formula for taxing leased natural-gas compressors and the proper taxable situs for this equipment. Galveston County challenged the Texas Tax Code provisions, arguing they undervalued the compressors at a "minute fraction" of their market value, violating constitutional requirements for "equal and uniform" taxation. The Supreme Court of Texas held that the county failed to rebut the strong presumption of constitutionality, clarifying that the legislature is not constitutionally mandated to base property valuation solely on market value. Furthermore, the Court determined that Washington County, where EXLP maintains its inventory and business operations, is the correct taxable situs, establishing a comprehensive statutory scheme that supersedes general situs rules. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and rendered a decision against Galveston County on both issues.

Property TaxTexas Tax CodeConstitutional LawValuation MethodTaxable SitusHeavy EquipmentNatural Gas CompressorsLegislative DiscretionEqual and Uniform TaxationMarket Value
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. 03-11-00327-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves a lease dispute between Cedar Contracting, Inc. and Lands & Leases, Inc. (Appellants) and Ronald Hernandez and Connie Hernandez (Appellees). Appellants appealed a trial court's summary judgment which declared that Cedar Contracting's assignment of its commercial lease rights and subsequent sublease violated the lease terms with Connie Hernandez. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the lease terminated upon Hernandez's notice of termination and that Cedar Contracting did not have an unrestricted right to assign or sublease the property without the landlord's consent. The court concluded that the phrase 'or its assigns' in the lease did not override the explicit restriction and found no error in the trial court's decision that Hernandez was justified in interfering with the sublease.

Lease DisputeCommercial LeaseAssignment of LeaseSubleaseLandlord ConsentSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationNotice of TerminationTortious InterferenceAttorney's Fees
References
32
Case No. 2016-06-0104, 2016-06-0105 (Docket No.); 2435-2016, 6196-2016 (State File No.)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2016

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The claimant, Shane Smiley, a commercial driver, alleged injury while operating a touring coach during a concert tour, attributing pain in his shoulder, left hip, and lower back to a defective seat and rough road conditions. Two potential employers, Four Seasons Coach Leasing, Inc. (coach owner) and Live Soul Touring (tour management company), denied liability. Four Seasons argued Smiley was not an employee or, if injured, Live Soul was the responsible employer under the loaned servant doctrine. Live Soul contended Smiley was an independent contractor and not a loaned servant. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court found Four Seasons to be the employer and ordered medical benefits but denied temporary disability benefits, prompting Four Seasons to appeal. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's determinations, finding Smiley was an employee of Four Seasons and not a loaned servant of Live Soul, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorLoaned Servant DoctrineCompensable InjuryMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsFactual AnalysisControl TestWork Relationship
References
11
Case No. 06-00-00053-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2002

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This appeal involves a breach of contract dispute between Driver Pipeline Company, Inc. (Appellant) and Mustang Pipeline Company, Inc. (Appellee) concerning a pipeline construction project. Driver was contracted to build a pipeline but faced delays, leading Mustang to terminate the contract and hire another company. At trial, the jury found Driver breached the contract but also that Mustang was not justified in its termination. The trial court subsequently granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on Mustang's damage award, citing a lack of evidence for reasonable and necessary costs. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court upheld the JNOV on Mustang's damages and sustained the jury's finding that Mustang's termination was unjustified, while Driver's appeal regarding a statutory mineral lien was not preserved for review.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawAppellate ReviewJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictDamagesReasonable and Necessary CostsMaterial BreachTermination of ContractFactual SufficiencyLegal Sufficiency
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

William Lloyd Bridges, a truck driver and owner, sued Andrews Transport, Inc. and Andrews Leasing, Inc. for fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and breach of contract, among other claims. Bridges operated under a dual relationship with Andrews Transport: as an employee and as a lessor of his truck via an Equipment Lease Agreement. The core dispute revolved around Andrews' deductions from Bridges' lease payments for employer-mandated taxes and workers' compensation. Bridges argued these deductions were illegal and void the lease agreement, violating public policy. The trial court granted summary judgment for Andrews. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, citing Hathcock v. Acme Truck Lines, Inc. and reasoning that the deductions from lease payments, rather than wages, by an employer to a lessor (even if the same individual) do not contravene federal or state laws or public policy.

FraudConversionRestitutionUnjust EnrichmentBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentEquipment Lease AgreementEmployment AgreementLessor-Lessee RelationshipEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,443 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