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. 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
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ernest Claridy v. Texas Employers' Insurance Association

Ernest Claridy sought worker's compensation benefits from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) for a back injury sustained on April 8, 1987, during his employment with Flowers Construction Company. TEIA argued that a subsequent neck injury from July 16, 1987, substantially contributed to Claridy's incapacity. A jury found the April 1987 injury caused total but temporary incapacity, ending April 12, 1995, and determined the July 1987 neck injury contributed 65% to the total incapacity. The trial court's judgment reflected this reduction in benefits. Claridy appealed, contending Section 12c of Article 8306 applies only to prior injuries reducing liability for subsequent ones. The appellate court, citing precedent, ruled that the statute's principle extends to subsequent injuries to prevent double recovery and reduce the carrier's liability to the extent of the actually insured injury. Medical testimony from Dr. Slade, Dr. Campbell, and Dr. Etheridge provided varying assessments of the neck injury's contribution, with percentages ranging from over fifty percent to one hundred percent. The jury's 65% finding was deemed within the evidence's range. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed.

Subsequent Injury ContributionPrior Injury ContributionIncapacity AssessmentInsurance Liability ReductionJury Verdict ReviewMedical Expert EvidenceBack InjuryNeck InjuryStatutory InterpretationTexas Civil Statutes
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Torres

Nester R. Torres was awarded worker's compensation benefits for total and permanent disability from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. Texas Employers’ appealed this judgment. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no evidence that a prior injury contributed to Mrs. Torres's current incapacity. Additionally, the court upheld the trial court's discretion in allowing a post-verdict trial amendment that argued for incapacity due to repetitious physical traumatic activities, as evidence supported this claim. All points of error raised by Texas Employers' were overruled.

Worker's CompensationPermanent DisabilityPrior Compensable InjuryRepetitious Physical TraumaOccupational DiseaseTrial AmendmentAbuse of DiscretionSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elena E. Francisco, Inc. v. Texas Employment Commission

Manuel Diaz, a supervisor, was discharged from his employment for allegedly lying about a December 6, 1987 incident involving alleged marihuana use. The Texas Employment Commission (TEC) granted him unemployment compensation benefits, finding no misconduct. The employer appealed this decision, raising two points of error: (1) insufficient evidence to support the TEC's ruling and (2) trial court error in excluding evidence of other misconduct not presented to the Commission. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, which had upheld the TEC's ruling, emphasizing that the 'substantial evidence' rule is the correct standard of review for TEC decisions, despite statutory language implying a de novo trial. The court also found no error in the trial court's handling of the additional misconduct evidence.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployment TerminationWorkplace MisconductLyingMarihuana UseSubstantial Evidence ReviewTrial De NovoAppellate ProcedureAdministrative LawTexas Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. City of Galveston

Etheridge Hill and Leopold Gonzales, longshoremen, sued the City of Galveston for personal injuries sustained from fumigated grain, alleging negligence. Their employer's insurer, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, joined seeking recoupment of compensation benefits. The City filed a cross-action against the insurer for contribution, claiming the insurer was the alter ego of the negligent employer. The trial court allowed this. The jury found the City not negligent but the employer negligent. On appeal, the court reversed, holding the cross-action against the compensation carrier was improper and prejudicial, as the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act limits employer liability and the insurer's right to recoupment is a contract right, not subject to employer's tort liability for contribution.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityContribution ClaimSubrogationCompensation InsuranceJury PrejudiceCross-ActionMaritime LawPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order dismissing its complaint for contribution and indemnification against the defendant. The defendant had employed two undocumented aliens who were injured on the plaintiff's property and received workers' compensation benefits. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) should negate the protections of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which typically bars third-party claims against employers unless specific exceptions apply. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the IRCA does not preempt Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, and a violation of IRCA does not abrogate an employer's immunity from third-party claims for contribution and indemnification.

ContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)CPLR 3211 (a) (7)PreemptionUndocumented AliensEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ClaimsStatutory Interpretation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kerr v. Black Clawson Co.

Plaintiff Dean E. Kerr sustained injuries while operating a machine as an employee of a third-party defendant, leading him and his wife to sue Black Clawson Converting Machinery Corporation, the machine's manufacturer, for various liabilities. Black Clawson then initiated a third-party action against Kerr's employer for contribution or indemnification, alleging negligence. The employer moved for summary judgment, contending that a 1996 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which generally eliminated employer liability for third-party contribution except in cases of "grave injury," barred the claim. The Supreme Court denied this motion, prompting the employer's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial, referencing its prior decision in Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., which held that the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 amendment does not apply to actions pending before September 10, 1996.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionContributionIndemnificationSummary JudgmentGrave InjuryStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationOmnibus Workers' Compensation Reform Act of 1996Employer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Williams

Olin J. Williams sued Texas Employers’ Insurance Association for total and permanent disability benefits due to asbestosis arising from his employment with Standco Industries, Inc. The insurance company denied the claim, attributing incapacity to unrelated conditions or asserting only partial incapacity. A jury found Williams totally and permanently incapacitated by asbestosis and that other conditions did not contribute. The appellant, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding medical testimony based on x-rays, the basis of Williams's knowledge of asbestos exposure, the finding of total incapacity, and the jury's finding that other ailments did not contribute. The appellate court found the evidence sufficient on all points and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

asbestosisworkers' compensationoccupational diseasetotal permanent disabilitymedical evidenceexpert testimonyx-rays admissibilityhearsay evidencecausationjury verdict
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Allen & Coon Construction Co.

Gordon Wagner, employed by Frank Crown Plastering Company, was electrocuted, leading to Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA), the compensation carrier, paying nearly $30,000 in benefits. Wagner then sued Allen & Coon Construction Company (A&C) and Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) as third-party tortfeasors. TEIA intervened to recover its expenditures. A&C settled with Wagner for $80,000 and agreed to indemnify Wagner against TEIA's claims. HL&P later settled with Wagner for another $80,000, and TEIA endorsed the checks, with Wagner receiving the full proceeds. Wagner then assigned his indemnity rights against A&C to TEIA. TEIA sued A&C, and A&C sought contribution from HL&P. The trial court granted summary judgment for TEIA against A&C and for A&C for contribution from HL&P. On appeal, the court affirmed TEIA's judgment against A&C, based on the "first money" rule, establishing A&C's liability to TEIA upon its initial settlement with Wagner. However, the court reversed the judgment awarding A&C contribution from HL&P, concluding that A&C had only settled its own liability and failed to establish a claim for contribution.

Worker's Compensation SubrogationThird-Party TortfeasorSettlement AgreementIndemnity AgreementSummary JudgmentContributionJoint and Several LiabilityFirst Money RuleAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 15,995 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