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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

E. Woods, an employee of Eastern Texas Electric Company, sustained severe personal injuries, including burns and a hernia, while working on electric lines in Beaumont, Texas, in May 1919. He sued the company, alleging negligence and arguing that it was subject to the Workmen’s Compensation Act for its lighting operations, despite also operating electric railways which were exempt. The court found that the company's electric lighting and power business was not exempt from the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The jury concluded the company was negligent in leaving severed, high-voltage wires connected, which was the proximate cause of Woods' injuries. The judgment of $3,300 in favor of E. Woods was affirmed on appeal.

Workers' Compensation ActEmployer NegligencePersonal Injury LawsuitElectric Utility SafetyCommon Carrier ExemptionStatutory ConstructionDual Business EntitiesAssumption of Risk DefenseContributory Negligence DefenseFellow Servant Doctrine

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

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

Case No. 08-21-00145-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 02, 2021

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

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appealed a worker’s compensation judgment concerning Ira Gillis White, who sustained a back injury. A jury found White totally incapacitated for three months and permanently partially incapacitated thereafter, establishing his weekly earning capacity at $150 during the partial incapacity period. Electric Mutual contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of White’s pre-injury wages and that the jury’s finding on earning capacity was unsupported or against the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining that worker’s compensation aims to compensate for loss of earning capacity, not just actual wages, and that post-injury earnings do not conclusively prove capacity. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's assessment of White's diminished earning capacity, considering his pain and physical limitations despite continued employment.

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law

References

Case No. 14-05-00908-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 27, 2007

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 08, 2012

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The plaintiff, a sewage treatment worker for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), suffered personal injuries after slipping on a threaded rod at a sewage facility. He subsequently commenced an action against Barbaro Electric Co., Inc., an electrical contractor working at the site, alleging common-law negligence for creating a dangerous condition. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted Barbaro Electric's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence claim. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court concluded that Barbaro Electric failed to make a prima facie showing that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition, noting testimony suggesting they might have used threaded rod in the area and that their equipment was found nearby. This raised a triable issue of fact, necessitating the denial of summary judgment.

Personal InjuryCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHazardous ConditionContractor LiabilityTriable Issue of FactPrima Facie CaseWorkplace AccidentPremises Liability

References

Case No. 2017-06-1179

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 26, 2019

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

Mr. Cato, an employee of Huxtable Electric, Inc., sought medical benefits for a left-shoulder injury. Huxtable disputed causation, arguing Mr. Cato's injury did not primarily arise from employment, citing his initial inconsistent statements to medical providers. Mr. Cato later testified he lied about the injury's origin due to supervisor instructions. Dr. James McGehee, the treating physician, initially couldn't link the injury to work based on early reports but, after reviewing Mr. Cato's sworn testimony and witness accounts of a workplace incident involving plywood, concluded the injury was consistent with and likely caused by the work event. The Court found Mr. Cato presented sufficient evidence to likely prevail at a final hearing, ruling that Huxtable must provide reasonable and necessary medical treatment and reimburse prior medical expenses for the left-shoulder injury.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryMedical BenefitsCausation DisputeCredibility AssessmentExpedited HearingSLAP TearLabral CystReimbursementEmployee Testimony

References

Case No. 04-08-00006-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 01, 2008

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

This workers' compensation case addresses whether a subcontractor, Eldridge Electric Company, is protected by the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act against a suit by Marco Funes, an employee of another subcontractor, Baker Drywall Co., Inc., on the same construction site. Funes sued Eldridge Electric for injuries sustained when he stepped on a pipe. Both companies were subcontractors for Clayco Construction, Inc., the general contractor, on an HEB renovation project, which utilized an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) for workers' compensation. Clayco mandated that its subcontractors enroll in the HEB OCIP, and deducted premium costs. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Eldridge Electric, holding that Clayco 'provided' the insurance by mandating enrollment in the OCIP, thereby establishing Clayco as a statutory employer and extending immunity to Eldridge Electric under the Act's exclusive remedy provision.

Exclusive Remedy DefenseSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor ImmunityOwner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP)Statutory EmployerSummary Judgment AffirmationAppellate Standard of ReviewLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor Code Section 406.123

References

Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02888 [149 AD3d 500]

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 13, 2017

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Plaintiff Patrick O'Leary sustained injuries from an electrical shock while overseeing renovation work. He sued S&A Electrical Contracting Corp. and 1435 Broadway, LLC (Owner) under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted O'Leary partial summary judgment on liability, denied Owner's motion to dismiss, and denied Nygard's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Owner summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Nygard International Partnership and dismissing all claims against Nygard NY Retail, LLC, while otherwise affirming the lower court's decision. The court found that O'Leary was engaged in construction work, a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.13 (b) (4) occurred due to negligence, and New York law governed the third-party claims.

Construction accidentLabor Lawindemnificationsummary judgmentvicarious liabilityelectrical shockpremises liabilitythird-party claimschoice of lawcomparative negligence

References

Case No. 2024-60-3896

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 18, 2025

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

Jhon Vallejo, represented by his conservator Huberney Vallejo, sought workers' compensation benefits for catastrophic injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, sustained in a fall at work. The Court found that Mr. Vallejo is likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits, determining that South Power Electric, LLC was his direct, uninsured employer, and Maddux Electric Co., Inc. was an intermediate and statutory employer. The Court rejected Maddux's safety rule violation defense, finding no proof that the ladder's condition caused the fall and that Mr. Vallejo lacked actual notice of the rule. Medical and temporary disability benefits were awarded, to be paid by South Power Electric, Maddux Electric, and Hanover Insurance. Additionally, Maddux Electric and Hanover Insurance were ordered to pay attorney's fees and costs due to their unreasonable denial of the claim.

Traumatic Brain InjurySafety Rule Violation DefenseLoaned Employee DoctrineStatutory Employer LiabilityAttorney's Fees AwardUnreasonable Claim DenialTemporary Total Disability BenefitsMedical Expense ReimbursementWorkplace AccidentEmployer Insurance Obligations

References

Showing 1-10 of 18,413 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

References

Case No. 08-21-00145-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 02, 2021

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

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law

References

Case No. 14-05-00908-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 27, 2007

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Construction LawContract BreachSubcontractor DisputeGeneral ContractorDamages CalculationLabor CostsSchedule CompressionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureBusiness Litigation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 08, 2012

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Personal InjuryCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHazardous ConditionContractor LiabilityTriable Issue of FactPrima Facie CaseWorkplace AccidentPremises Liability

References

Case No. 2017-06-1179

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 26, 2019

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

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryMedical BenefitsCausation DisputeCredibility AssessmentExpedited HearingSLAP TearLabral CystReimbursementEmployee Testimony

References

Case No. 04-08-00006-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 01, 2008

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

References

Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02888 [149 AD3d 500]

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 13, 2017

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Construction accidentLabor Lawindemnificationsummary judgmentvicarious liabilityelectrical shockpremises liabilitythird-party claimschoice of lawcomparative negligence

References

Case No. 2024-60-3896

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 18, 2025

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

References

Showing 1-10 of 18,413 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.