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. 08-21-00145-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2021

Schneider Electric USA, Inc. D/B/A Schneider Electric v. Maria Ramirez

Maria Ramirez, an Aerotek employee assigned to Schneider Electric, filed a workers' compensation discrimination claim against Schneider Electric under Texas Labor Code Section 451.001. Schneider Electric moved for summary judgment, arguing it could not be liable under Section 451 because it did not provide Ramirez's workers' compensation coverage, which was handled by Aerotek. The trial court denied Schneider Electric's motion but granted permission for an interlocutory appeal. Schneider Electric, as the appellant, argues that the trial court erred in denying summary judgment, contending that Section 451 liability only applies to the entity providing workers' compensation coverage to the claimant, which in this case was Aerotek, not Schneider Electric. The appellant requests that the appellate court reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment and dismiss Ramirez's claim with prejudice.

Workers' Compensation DiscriminationSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeStaffing Agency LiabilityCo-EmploymentRetaliatory DischargePermissive AppealEmployer LiabilityTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate Brief
References
34
Case No. 14-05-00908-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2007

Gilbane Building Company v. Two Turner's Electric Co. Dba Turner Electric Co.

In this case, Gilbane Building Company, a general contractor, appealed a judgment in favor of its electrical subcontractor, Turner Electric Company. Turner Electric sued Gilbane for breach of contract, alleging increased labor costs due to significant compression of the project schedule caused by Gilbane's decisions. The jury found in favor of Turner Electric, and the trial court awarded damages. The appellate court reviewed Gilbane's challenges regarding the sufficiency of evidence for damages and Turner Electric's compliance with contractual conditions for claims. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ample evidence to support Turner Electric's claims and noting that Gilbane had waived its procedural defenses.

Construction LawContract BreachSubcontractor DisputeGeneral ContractorDamages CalculationLabor CostsSchedule CompressionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureBusiness Litigation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. General Electric Co.

The Union, consisting of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and five of its locals, sued General Electric Company under the Taft-Hartley Act to compel arbitration of various grievances. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The central issues revolve around whether the 1956-1960 collective bargaining agreement provides for compulsory arbitration and if the grievances fall within its scope. The court found the contract language ambiguous, requiring extrinsic evidence for proper interpretation. Consequently, the court denied both motions for summary judgment, citing the presence of genuine issues of material fact that warrant a full trial.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationTaft-Hartley ActSummary JudgmentLabor LawContract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceAmbiguityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureGrievance Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Union of Electrical & Machine Workers v. General Electric Co.

This case involves a dispute between the International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine Workers (Union) and General Electric Company (Company), and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, concerning a 1966 Pension and Insurance Agreement and its incorporated Insurance Plan. The Union alleged the Company wrongfully rejected sickness and accident claims filed during a strike and, alternatively, sought reimbursement for employee contributions for coverage not provided during the strike. The central issue was the interpretation of clauses governing sickness and accident benefits during voluntary strike absences. The Court found that the Company properly rejected claims for benefits arising more than 31 days into the strike, dismissing the Union's first claim. However, the Court ruled that employees are entitled to reimbursement for the portion of their contributions related to sickness and accident coverage not afforded during the strike, and ordered an assessment of damages if parties cannot agree on the amount.

labour lawcollective bargaining agreementinsurance plansickness and accident benefitsstrikeemployee contributionscontract interpretationunjust enrichmentdamagesfederal court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Electric Co. v. Kunze

Appellee Curtis T. Kunze was awarded damages by a jury after being discharged from his employment with General Electric Company and General Electric Supply Company in violation of Texas Worker’s Compensation Statutes, article 8307c. The damages included lost past and future wages and benefits, and exemplary damages for willful and malicious termination. General Electric appealed, contending that Kunze was fired for poor performance, not for filing a worker's compensation claim, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for damages and the recoverability of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding ample evidence to support the jury's findings of wrongful termination and the awarded damages. It also clarified that future lost wages are recoverable under the statute and that prejudgment interest was already factored into the damage awards.

Worker's CompensationWrongful TerminationRetaliatory DischargeExemplary DamagesLost WagesLost BenefitsFuture DamagesPrejudgment InterestEvidence AdmissibilityExpert Witness
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Beutnagel

This is an appeal from a condemnation judgment involving South Texas Electric Cooperative, Inc. (appellant) and Charles F. Beutnagel and wife (appellees). The Cooperative condemned a right-of-way easement for an electric power transmission line across the Beutnagels' property. The jury awarded the appellees $3,005.88, comprising $1,000 for the taken strip and $2,005.88 for damages to the remaining property. The appellant raised ten points of error, primarily challenging the sufficiency of evidence for damages to the remainder, the measure of damages used, and potential double recovery. The appellate court reviewed the contentions, finding ample evidence, including testimony regarding farming difficulties, hazards, unsightliness, and interference, to support the jury's findings on the decrease in the remaining property's value. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

CondemnationEasementRight-of-WayElectric Power LineMarket ValueProperty DamagesJury VerdictSpecial IssuesAppellate ProcedureEminent Domain
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slaughter v. Duck River Electric Membership Corp.

James Randall Slaughter, an employee of Osborne Electrical Contractors, Inc., suffered severe electrical shock injuries while working on lines for Duck River Electric Membership Corporation (DREMC). Slaughter filed a negligence lawsuit against DREMC, which claimed immunity as a statutory employer under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court initially denied, but later granted, summary judgment for DREMC and Osborne, finding DREMC was a statutory employer. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that DREMC's right to control Osborne's work and the nature of the work performed made DREMC a statutory employer, thus barring Slaughter's common law tort action under the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimExclusive Remedy ProvisionRight to Control TestIndependent Contractor StatusThird-Party ComplaintElectrical AccidentPersonal Injury
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The plaintiff, United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, filed a complaint against various defendants, including labor unions, union officials, installers, and a manufacturer of electrical equipment, alleging a conspiracy to deprive its members of collective bargaining rights under the National Labor Relations Act. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. The court, presided over by District Judge Mandelbaum, determined that the National Labor Relations Board holds exclusive jurisdiction over such controversies. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had not exhausted its administrative remedies before the Board. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, directing the plaintiff to pursue relief through appropriate administrative proceedings.

Labor LawJurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticeAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of RemediesConspiracyBoycottMotion to Dismiss
References
23
Case No. 02-09-00395-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2011

University of North Texas v. City of Denton, Texas, Acting by and Through Its Electric Utility Department, Denton Municipal Electric

The University of North Texas (UNT) appealed a trial court's order granting summary judgment to the City of Denton and its electric utility (DME). The core dispute revolved around a 20% discount on utility rates for universities, which UNT claimed was still active under the utilities code, while the City argued it had expired. The City initially sued UNT for underpayments, but after a settlement, only a declaratory judgment claim remained. The appellate court ruled that UNT was immune from the City's declaratory judgment claim, as its ultimate purpose was to compel UNT to pay financial damages, and sovereign immunity had not been waived. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded, providing the City an opportunity to amend its pleadings to address the jurisdictional defect.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentUtilities CodeUniversity DiscountMunicipal ElectricDenton CountyAppellate LawStatutory InterpretationUltra ViresPublic Utility Regulatory Act
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dow Electric, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 910

Plaintiff Dow Electric Inc. sought to vacate a Labor-Management Committee's award for violating collective bargaining agreements, while Defendant Local Union 910 IBEW counterclaimed for confirmation. The dispute centered on whether Dow Electric Inc. effectively terminated its collective bargaining authority with the Association before the 2000-2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) came into effect. The Court found that Plaintiff's July 31, 1998, letters unequivocally terminated the Association’s collective bargaining authority, and subsequent correspondence did not retract this. Therefore, the 2000-2003 CBA did not bind Plaintiff, and the Committee lacked jurisdiction over grievances based on it. The Court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding the 2000-2003 CBA award, vacating the $991,629.89 award. However, the Court affirmed the Committee's $63,011.48 award for violations of the 1997-2000 CBA, ruling that disputes based on acts prior to an agreement's expiration can still be arbitrated, and the awards for interest, liquidated damages, and back pay were plausibly grounded in the CBA.

Collective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawUnionSummary JudgmentArbitrationContract TerminationMulti-Employer Bargaining UnitPre-hire AgreementGrievanceAudit
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,528 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