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

Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. v. Texas Utilities Electric Co.

Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) sued Metrocom, Inc. d/b/a Whi-teco, and Whiteco Industries, Inc. d/b/a Whiteco (Whiteco) for indemnification of costs incurred after a Whiteco employee was injured by a high-voltage power line. Whiteco appealed a summary judgment granted to TU Electric, claiming immunity under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code section 417.004. The court considered whether this immunity statute precluded TU Electric's right to indemnification under Health and Safety Code section 752.008, which addresses liability for contact with electrical power lines. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the immunity statute does not apply to a suit for indemnity arising from a breach of the statutory duty imposed by the health and safety code.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationStatutory DutyHigh Voltage Power LineSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityHealth and Safety CodeLabor CodeCode Construction ActStatutory Interpretation
References
6
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

Wooldridge v. TXU Electric Delivery Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Phillip Darren Wooldridge against TXU Electric Delivery Company after a trial court judgment found him partially responsible for injuries sustained from electrocution during a roofing accident. Wooldridge argued the trial court erred by not including a specific jury instruction regarding the employment status of Johnny Calhoun, a designated responsible third party, and the applicability of Texas Health and Safety Code Section 752. The trial court refused the instruction, allowing alternative theories of liability. The jury ultimately attributed varying percentages of negligence to multiple parties, including Wooldridge, Jim Gribble, Wayne’s Roofing, Johnny Calhoun, Brazos River Authority, and TXU. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in submitting the jury charge.

Jury InstructionElectrocution InjuryHigh Voltage LineResponsible Third PartyNegligence AttributionTexas Health and Safety CodeEmployee vs. Independent ContractorProximate CauseAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
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

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97 v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

This case involves a dispute between International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 97 (the union) and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The union sought to confirm an arbitration award that reinstated employee Patrick J. Rando, who was discharged by Niagara Mohawk after adulterating a drug test sample and later testing positive for cocaine. Niagara Mohawk counterclaimed to vacate the award, arguing it violated public policy related to nuclear safety. The employee, a Chemistry Technician at a nuclear power plant, had unescorted access to critical areas. The court reviewed the public policy implications de novo, citing NRC regulations (10 C.F.R. Part 26) that emphasize strict adherence to nuclear safety rules and the trustworthiness of personnel. The court found that the grievant's conduct directly contravened this well-defined public policy. Consequently, the court denied the union's motion to confirm, granted Niagara Mohawk's cross-motion, and vacated the arbitration award, dismissing the complaint entirely. Both parties' requests for attorney's fees were denied.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyNuclear SafetyDrug TestingEmployee DischargeCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessTrustworthinessReliabilityReinstatement
References
28
Case No. 2024-60-3896
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2025

Huberney Vallejo, o/b/o Jhon Vallejo v. South Power Electric, LLC; The Sheffield Fund; Maddux Electric Co., Inc.; and Hanover Insurance

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
15
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
Showing 1-10 of 2,439 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