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
May 18, 1994

Claim of Boshart v. St. Francis Hospital

The claimant, a hospital employee, stopped working due to an aggravated preexisting back condition and filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. Her claim was initially denied, but a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found prima facie medical evidence for an occupational back condition. Upon appeal, the Workers' Compensation Board rejected the employer's contention that the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, ruling the employer had waived this defense. The employer appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer failed to raise the Statute of Limitations defense at the first hearing where all parties were present, thereby waiving the right to assert it.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsWaiverOccupational DiseaseBack InjuryEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewProcedural DefenseInsurance ClaimBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Welch v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Betty Jo Welch appealed a take-nothing judgment in a worker's compensation death case concerning her son, Alan Wayne Welch, who drowned in a frac tank containing crude oil while employed by Jolley Well Service. The jury initially found Alan Welch was not in the course and scope of his employment, with Texas Employers' defense citing intoxication. Mrs. Welch argued the trial court erred in admitting testimony from Kenny Barnes about her son "sniffing gas" on a prior occasion, deeming it prejudicial and irrelevant. The appellate court agreed that the testimony was improperly admitted as it failed to meet the criteria for a declaration against interest or an admission, and was not relevant to the intoxication defense. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

worker's compensationdeath caseintoxication defensecourse and scope of employmentadmissibility of evidencehearsaydeclarations against interestmotion in limineprejudicial testimonyreversal and remand
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Moore

Herbert B. Moore, an employee of Greta Oil Company, tragically died in a car accident in Louisiana while engaged in a "scouting" mission for his employer. His dependents, Mrs. Loula Moore and her sons, filed a worker's compensation claim against the Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, Greta Oil Company's compensation carrier. The defense challenged Moore's employment status and the extraterritorial applicability of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming Moore's employment with Greta and his death in the course of duty. The appellate court subsequently reformed the judgment concerning financial calculations but ultimately affirmed the core decision, upholding the award of compensation to the appellees.

Workman's CompensationExtraterritorial EmploymentTexas LawLouisiana AccidentEmployee Status DisputeOil IndustryJury VerdictContract InterpretationInsurance LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 03-99-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2000

Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Jack M. Webb, as Special Deputy Receiver of Employers Casualty Co. Jack M. Webb, as Special Deputy Receiver of Employers National Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment concerning the claims priority scheme within the Texas Insurance Code's liquidation statute. The appellant, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), challenged the classification of its claims for defense costs incurred in defending liability and workers' compensation claims under policies of insolvent insurers. TPCIGA argued these costs should receive Class 1 priority as claims-handling expenses, while appellees contended they were Class 2 payments of policyholder claims. The court concluded that, prior to a 1995 amendment to the statute, such defense costs were properly classified as Class 2 claims. Therefore, the district court's judgment classifying them as Class 2 was affirmed.

Insurance LawClaims PriorityLiquidation StatuteTexas Insurance CodeGuaranty ActPolicyholder ClaimsDefense CostsStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentReceivership
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

XL Specialty Insurance v. Kiewit Offshore Services, Ltd.

This memorandum opinion addresses cross-motions for summary judgment in a case originating from an explosion that killed two workers, one each from Kiewit Offshore Services, LTD (general contractor) and R.B.T. Welders, Inc. (subcontractor). Relatives of the deceased workers filed a negligence lawsuit. XL Specialty Insurance Company, RBT's insurer, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Kiewit, denying a duty to defend or indemnify. Kiewit, in turn, sought indemnification from RBT and coverage from XL. The Court granted Kiewit's motion for summary judgment in part, holding RBT must indemnify Kiewit for a $4 million settlement payment, specific attorney's fees, and prejudgment interest, finding Kiewit faced potential liability and the settlement was reasonable. The Court denied Kiewit's claim for undocumented expenses and denied XL's motion for summary judgment asserting statutory employer and borrowed servant defenses under workers' compensation laws for Kiewit, concluding these defenses were not applicable.

Summary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnityBorrowed Servant DoctrineStatutory EmployerNegligence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 1993

Texas Employers Insurance v. Underwriting Members of Lloyds

The case involves a dispute between a primary insurer, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA), and several excess liability insurers (The Underwriting Members of Lloyds, et al.) over the reimbursement of defense costs incurred in an underlying lawsuit. TEIA, Monsanto's primary insurer, defended Monsanto in a toxic tort case, paying its $1 million indemnity limit and $4,057,245 in attorneys’ fees and costs. TEIA sought contribution and indemnity from the excess carriers, alleging they were responsible for defense costs and breached a duty of good faith. The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants, holding that under Texas law and the unambiguous terms of the insurance policies, excess insurers are not obligated to participate in defense costs until the primary policy limits are exhausted. The Court also found TEIA's purported tender of its policy limits invalid and dismissed its claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.

Insurance DisputePrimary vs. Excess InsurerDefense CostsEquitable SubrogationSummary JudgmentPolicy InterpretationTexas LawGood Faith and Fair DealingExhaustion of Policy LimitsIndemnity Claim
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whitehead v. Holston Defense Corporation

Eoscoe E. Whitehead was awarded total and permanent disability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law due to pulmonary fibrosis, an occupational disease contracted during his employment at Holston Defense Corporation. The defendant appealed, challenging the compensability of the disease and alleging lack of proper notice. The Court affirmed the Chancellor's decree, finding substantial evidence of a causal connection between Whitehead's work conditions and his illness. The Court also determined that the employer's medical staff had actual knowledge of Whitehead's condition and concealed it from him. It broadly interpreted T.C.A. sec. 50-1101 to include Whitehead's ailment as a compensable occupational disease, overruling the assignments of error.

Occupational DiseasePulmonary FibrosisWorkers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityCausationEmployer KnowledgeConcealment of ConditionStatutory ConstructionNon-scheduled Occupational DiseaseIndustrial Exposure
References
2
Case No. 01-93-00152-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1995

Campbell v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INS. ASS'N

This case involves a claim of lack of good faith and fair dealing against workers' compensation insurance carriers. Danny Campbell, an employee of the Houston Independent School District, became severely ill and later died after ingesting formaldehyde from his thermos at work. His wife, Margaret Campbell, sued the insurance carriers (Texas Employers' Insurance Association, Employers Casualty Company, and Employers' National Risk Management Services, Inc.) for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, DTPA violations, and Insurance Code violations, after they denied coverage. The trial court granted summary judgment for the carriers, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Campbell's injury was sustained in the course of his employment and whether the denial of payment was reasonable, and it rejected the carriers' defenses of statute of limitations and governmental immunity. The cause was remanded for a trial on the merits.

Workers' CompensationBad Faith ClaimUnfair DealingSummary Judgment ReversalCourse of EmploymentPersonal Animosity ExceptionStatute of LimitationsGovernmental ImmunityInsurance Coverage DisputeToxic Ingestion
References
20
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
Showing 1-10 of 16,973 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