Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ1543435

Regular

Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 01, 1961

Texas Employment Commission v. Huey

Clara Huey and other plaintiffs sought unemployment benefits after being laid off during a plant shutdown by Nardis Sportswear, Inc. The Texas Employment Commission denied benefits, arguing the union contract effectively made their unemployment a voluntary 'vacation period' without pay. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' reversal of the trial court, ruling that the plaintiffs were not disqualified from receiving benefits. The court found the shutdown was primarily for the employer's benefit, not a union-demanded vacation, and thus unemployment was involuntary. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not 'leave their employment voluntarily without good cause connected with their work' as per the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act.

Unemployment CompensationPlant ShutdownUnion ContractVacation PayInvoluntary UnemploymentStatutory ConstructionTexas LawCollective BargainingEligibility for BenefitsEmployer Discretion

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Employers Casualty Co. v. Texas Attorney General

This case involves an appeal by Employers Casualty Company (Employers) against a trial court's order mandating the withholding of Michael Toliver's workers' compensation benefits to satisfy his child support obligations. Employers argued that the applicable law at the time of Toliver's injury in 1990, Texas Revised Civil Statutes article 8306, § 3(b), exempted such benefits from garnishment or withholding. The Texas Attorney General countered, arguing for the application of a newer statute, article 8308-4.08(b), or that legislative intent supported the withholding. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the law in effect at the time of injury governs the case, and therefore, Employers is not required to withhold the benefits. However, the court clarified that the benefits are still available for child support directly from Michael Toliver after he receives them.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsChild Support EnforcementWithholding OrderStatutory InterpretationRetroactivity of LawExemption from GarnishmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance LawDate of Injury Rule

References

Case No. 13-17-00346-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employment Commission v. Briones

Maria M. Briones and 213 other claimants appealed an administrative determination by the Texas Employment Commission, which had awarded them reduced unemployment benefits due to holiday pay received from their employer, Friedrich Refrigerators, Inc. The trial court initially set aside the Commission's decision, granting full benefits to the claimants. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, affirming the Texas Employment Commission's original decision. The central issue was whether holiday pay constituted "wages" under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act and if it should be attributed to the week the holiday occurred, thereby leading to partial unemployment benefits. The court concluded that holiday pay was indeed wages and attributable to the holiday week, classifying claimants as partially unemployed.

Unemployment benefitsHoliday payWagesStatutory interpretationAdministrative appealPartial unemploymentCollective bargaining agreementEmployer shutdownLabor lawAppellate review

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Clingan v. Employers Casualty Co.

M. W. Clingan, father of the deceased Michael Clingan, sought to recover death benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act from Employers Casualty Company. Michael, a graduate student and teaching assistant at Texas Tech University, died after being shot while assisting in moving laboratory equipment for cleaning, an activity the plaintiff argued constituted covered employment. The Industrial Accident Board initially awarded benefits, but the district court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendant. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Michael was not in covered employment at the time of his death, as his actions were deemed for his own research benefit and not within the scope of his defined teaching or janitorial duties.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsScope of EmploymentGraduate StudentTeaching AssistantLaboratory SafetyJudgment N.O.V.Statutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityInsurance Coverage

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foti-Crawford v. Buffalo General Hospital

A registered nurse sustained a back injury in July 1991 while concurrently employed by Buffalo General Hospital and Supplemental Health Care, leading to permanent partial disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits of $153.36 per week and ruled that the Special Disability Fund should reimburse the hospital's carrier for most of these benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Fund appealed, contending that reimbursement was unwarranted as the benefits did not exceed the maximum amount the hospital would have paid without concurrent employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation rational, especially given the claimant returned to work for the primary employer.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageAppellate ReviewBack InjuryNurseWorkers' Compensation Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 22, 1984

Barnhardt v. Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds

The plaintiff, injured in May 1978 during maintenance work, was denied workers' compensation due to the absence of an employer-employee relationship. Subsequently, he sought reimbursement for medical expenses from the Hudson Valley District Council of Carpenters Benefit Funds (Benefit Funds) through a union insurance policy. Continental Assurance Company (Continental), Benefit Funds' insurer, rejected the claim, citing an employment-related injury exclusion in the policy. The plaintiff then initiated an action against Benefit Funds, which in turn filed a third-party action against Continental seeking indemnification. Continental's motion for summary judgment, asserting the exclusion, was denied by the County Court. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that the exclusionary language was ambiguous and applied only in cases where a clear employer-employee relationship existed, a fact still to be determined.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation ExclusionSummary Judgment MotionContractual AmbiguityGroup Health InsuranceMedical Expense ReimbursementThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee Relationship

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Armstrong

Plaintiff James W. Armstrong sued Texas Employers’ Insurance Association for worker’s compensation benefits following a ruptured disc injury sustained in 1973 while working for Neuhoff Brothers Packing Company. Despite returning to work for several years after the injury, the jury found in favor of Armstrong, awarding him total and permanent disability benefits plus past medical expenses. The Association appealed, arguing that Armstrong could not be considered totally and permanently disabled while employed and earning wages, and that the jury's findings were against the clear weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that continued employment does not conclusively negate total disability and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The court also ruled that awarded benefits are not reduced by wages earned post-injury and denied Armstrong's cross-point for damages for a frivolous appeal.

Worker's Compensation LawTotal Permanent DisabilityMedical ExpensesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceContinued EmploymentWage ReductionHerniated DiscAccidental Injury

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Texas Employment Commission

The case, a companion to Huey v. Texas Employment Commission, concerns employees of several Texas garment manufacturing companies, led by Frances M. Hansen, who were denied unemployment compensation. The Texas Employment Commission refused benefits after a two-week plant shutdown in 1956, citing a collective bargaining agreement where employees allegedly "left his last work voluntarily." Employees of one company, The Corsicana Company, were granted benefits. Appellants, represented by Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, challenged the District Court's affirmation of the Commission's decision. The Chief Justice reversed the lower court's judgment, ruling that the employees did not voluntarily leave their employment and are therefore eligible for unemployment benefits, provided they meet other statutory requirements.

Unemployment compensationCollective bargaining agreementPlant shutdownVoluntary leavingEligibility for benefitsTexas employment lawLabor unionAppeals court decisionJudicial reviewEmployer-employee dispute

References

Showing 1-10 of 20,213 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

References

Showing 1-10 of 20,213 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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