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

Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C. v. Casados

This case involves an appeal concerning the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Rafael Casados, a temporary employee leased by Staff Force to Port Elevator-Brownsville, L.L.C., died in a work-related accident. His parents, Rogelio and Rafaela Casados, sued Port Elevator for wrongful death. Port Elevator sought summary judgment, arguing Casados was its employee and covered by its workers' compensation policy, thus barring the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of Port Elevator's summary judgment and the granting of Casados's partial summary judgment. The court found that Port Elevator failed to conclusively prove its policy covered temporary employees like Casados, thus rendering the exclusive remedy defense inapplicable.

Exclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed ServantSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageEmployer LiabilityTexas Workers' Compensation ActStaff Leasing Services ActPolicy InterpretationWrongful Death
References
19
Case No. 03-98-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Subsequent Injury Fund v. Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

The Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (Risk Pool) challenged the constitutionality of specific provisions within the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and related Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) rules. These provisions mandated contributions to the Subsequent Injury Fund, which the Risk Pool argued violated constitutional restrictions on political subdivisions lending credit or granting public money, and imposing state ad valorem property taxes. The trial court initially sided with the Risk Pool, declaring the requirements unconstitutional as applied to its members. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed the Risk Pool's standing and the core constitutional arguments. The appellate court characterized the mandatory contributions as analogous to a custodial escheat statute, where the state assumes custody of unclaimed death benefits rather than gaining absolute ownership. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Risk Pool failed to meet its burden for an "as applied" constitutional challenge, notably by not asserting a limitations defense.

Workers' Compensation ActSubsequent Injury FundDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeAs-Applied ChallengeAssociational StandingAcceptance of Benefits DoctrineEscheat LawCustodial EscheatUnclaimed Death Benefits
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

This dissenting opinion concerns the application of Labor Law § 240 (1) in a case where the plaintiff, Ronald C. Smith, was injured while a crane was being used as a winch to drag equipment horizontally. The dissent argues against the majority's interpretation that the statute applies if a safety device is usually related to elevation risk, regardless of its actual use at the time of the accident. It contends that the statute's applicability depends on the activity performed and that the injury was not due to an elevation-related risk, emphasizing that the 'effects of gravity' phrase in the statute is context-specific to elevation-related accidents, not general gravitational forces.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Workplace InjuryCrane AccidentStatutory InterpretationDissenting OpinionElevation RiskSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewGravity EffectsWinch Operation
References
2
Case No. 2018-07-0436
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Hart, Jeannie v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp.

This appeal concerns the appropriate medical impairment rating for an employee, Jeannie Hart, who sustained a work-related shoulder injury while employed by ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp. The employer challenged a six percent medical impairment rating, arguing a portion was attributable to a non-work-related condition (AC arthrosis). The Appeals Board found that the distal clavicle resection, performed due to the pre-existing AC arthrosis, was not causally linked to the work injury. Consequently, the Board modified the trial court's award, determining that only a three percent medical impairment rating was directly related to the work injury, based on the authorized physician's testimony.

Medical Impairment RatingShoulder InjuryAC ArthrosisDistal Clavicle ResectionLabral TearBiceps TendinitisCausationPre-existing ConditionAMA GuidesPermanent Partial Disability
References
9
Case No. 895 CA 23-00349
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2024

Wolfanger v. Once Again Nut Butter Collective Inc.

Plaintiff Lance Wolfanger commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained while working on a warehouse construction project. He alleged that he experienced dizziness and fell from a boom lift exhausting noxious diesel fumes while spray-painting at a high elevation. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to defendants, concluding that the injuries were not caused by an elevation-related risk. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision, reinstating the plaintiff's causes of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court found that the plaintiff's fall from the lift, caused by noxious fumes at an elevation, constituted an elevation-related risk, and that defendants failed to provide proper protection. The court granted plaintiff summary judgment on the issue of liability for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claims.

Labor Law § 240(1)construction accidentfall from heightboom liftnoxious fumessummary judgmentappellate reversalworker injuryworkplace safetyproximate cause
References
12
Case No. 2003-43576
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Unitec Elevator Services Co.

In this opinion, relators Unitec Elevator Services Company d/b/a VTM Elevator Company, and related entities, challenged the trial court's orders denying their motions to designate responsible third parties in an underlying personal injury lawsuit. Plaintiffs Mary Theresa Bryant and Anna Menses, along with intervenors David Trujillo and Rawle Frank, alleged injuries from an elevator fall while working for Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Relators sought to designate Southwestern Bell, unknown vandals, and Centerpoint Energy as responsible third parties. The appellate court denied the petition for writ of mandamus, upholding the trial court's denial for unknown vandals and Centerpoint Energy due to procedural issues. While the trial court erred in denying the designation of Southwestern Bell, the appellate court found the relators had an adequate remedy by appeal, thus making mandamus relief unnecessary. The court ultimately denied the petition in all respects.

MandamusResponsible Third PartyCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTimelinessGood CauseStatutory ConstructionPersonal InjuryElevator Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carroum v. Dover Elevator Co.

This case involves an appeal by Budgetel Inns, the third-party defendant, against a summary judgment granted to Dover Elevator Company, the third-party plaintiff, based on an indemnity clause. The underlying action arose from an injury sustained by Roger Carroum, a Budgetel employee, who sued Dover for negligence in an elevator incident. Dover subsequently sought indemnification from Budgetel, relying on a contractual indemnity clause. Budgetel argued the clause was void under T.C.A. § 62-6-123, which invalidates indemnity agreements related to construction against a promisee's sole negligence. The appellate court found that material facts were disputed regarding whether the Budgetel Inn was still under construction at the time of the injury, making summary judgment improper. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Indemnity ClauseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationConstruction ContractNegligenceThird-Party ComplaintT.C.A. § 62-6-123Public PolicyVoid ContractBodily Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Triola v. City of New York

Plaintiff James Trióla, employed as a laborer at a construction site, sustained injuries while cleaning sand inside steel tube pilings. He alleged that the defendants violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide adequate safety devices while he traversed elevated concrete beams, leading to a fall. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on liability, asserting the hazard was elevation-related and that the defendants' failure to provide safety equipment was the proximate cause of injuries. The defendants contended the hazard was not elevation-related and that the plaintiff caused his own injuries. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion, and the appellate court affirmed, concluding that the work involved an elevation-related risk and that the lack of safety devices was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityElevation-Related RiskSafety DevicesProximate CauseAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryStaten Island
References
13
Case No. 12-19-00144-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2019

in Re: Old Republic Risk Management, Old Republic Insurance Company, Thornton, Biechlin, Reynolds & Guerra, L.C., Timothy K. Singley and Dana M. Gannon

Relators challenged the respondent's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The Court conditionally granted the petition, directing the respondent to vacate an earlier order and issue a new order, granting the plea for specific claims and abating the trial court proceeding pending the Division of Workers’ Compensation’s resolution of subrogation and benefit inflation issues. The respondent complied with this order, rendering the mandamus proceeding moot. Consequently, the relators' petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot.

MandamusPlea to JurisdictionMotion to DismissMootnessWorkers' CompensationSubrogation ClaimFraudulent LienInsurance Code ViolationsFraudConspiracy
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Risk Funding Insurance Co. Ex Rel. Continental Casualty Co. v. Lambert

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment concerning a workers' compensation carrier's waiver of subrogation rights. Larry Lambert, Rogers Patino, and Andres Garcia (appellees), employees of U.S. Contractors, Inc., were injured in a chemical plant explosion and settled with third-party defendants (Memc Pasadena, Inc., J.E. Merit Contractors, Inc., and Albemarle Corporation) for $1.8 million. American Risk Funding Insurance Company (appellant), the workers' compensation carrier for U.S. Contractors, Inc., intervened to seek reimbursement for benefits paid, but Lambert denied the claim due to a prior contract waiving subrogation rights. The trial court granted Lambert's motion for summary judgment, which American Risk Funding appealed. The appellate court addressed five issues raised by the appellant, primarily concerning the validity and scope of the subrogation waiver, including arguments about public policy, lack of consideration, intent to benefit appellees, waiver of future benefits, and common law conversion. The court systematically overruled all of appellant's issues, concluding that the waiver of subrogation does not violate public policy, does not require separate consideration, was intended to apply as contracted, waives rights to future credits, and extinguishes common law claims related to subrogation. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court affirming the summary judgment in favor of Lambert was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation WaiverSummary Judgment AppealPublic PolicyContract LawTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsEmployee RightsThird-Party LiabilityReimbursement
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 9,173 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