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

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
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zavala-Nava v. A.C. Employment, Inc.

Jose Zavala-Nava, an employee furnished by A.C. Employment, Inc. (Ajax) to Centron Corporation, sustained severe burns due to acetone fumes while cleaning work clothes. He filed a common-law negligence suit against both companies, alleging joint employment and negligence. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming workers' compensation coverage as the exclusive remedy. The trial court granted both motions. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for A.C. Employment, Inc., finding it was a workers' compensation subscriber. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment for Centron Corporation, as the summary judgment proof did not show Centron to be a subscriber under Texas Workers' Compensation statutes, despite Ajax providing coverage that named Centron as an 'alternate employer' and explicitly stating it was not intended to satisfy Centron's duty to secure its own obligations.

Workers' CompensationCommon LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityAlternate EmployerSubscriber StatusTexas LawPersonal InjuryEmployment Agency
References
12
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

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07023 [154 AD3d 1037]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

Matter of Passero v. Uninsured Employers' Fund

The claimant, Edmund Passero, a bricklayer, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2011 for an occupational disease resulting from repetitive stress. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially established the claim against DeSpirit Mosaic & Marble Co. and later apportioned liability among three employers, including J. William Pustelak Inc., found to be uninsured. The Uninsured Employers' Fund (UEF) sought administrative review, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the appeal as untimely. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's finding on the timeliness of UEF's application, holding that UEF would not have incurred an obligation until the WCLJ's December 2014 decision which apportioned liability. The case was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board to consider the merits of UEF's appeal.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseUntimely AppealAdministrative ReviewLiability ApportionmentUninsured EmployerDate of DisablementThird DepartmentAppellate DivisionClaimant Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1989

Quinn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found that the claimant was not discriminated against by their employer. The claimant was terminated due to a work-related disability, and subsequently rejected rehire offers from the employer, despite no decrease in salary. When the claimant later sought reemployment, the employer refused. The court found that the claimant failed to prove discrimination or retaliation, and that the employer was under no contractual or legal obligation to rehire the claimant after termination. Therefore, the decision affirming that the employer did not discriminate was upheld.

Workers' CompensationDiscriminationRetaliationReinstatementTerminationEmploymentDisabilitySubstantial EvidenceRehireBoard Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blair v. Texas Employment Commission

William G. Blair appealed an order requiring him to produce employment and payroll records to the Texas Employment Commission (TEC). Blair claimed the records were privileged under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, fearing self-incrimination, and offered to produce them only if granted immunity. The Attorney General then filed an application in the 72nd District Court of Lubbock County, which ordered Blair to produce the records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "required records" doctrine, which is an exception to the self-incrimination privilege for records mandated by law for governmental regulation, especially concerning public welfare and the collection of taxes for unemployment compensation.

Required Records DoctrineSelf-IncriminationFifth AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEmployment RecordsPayroll RecordsAdministrative SubpoenaGovernmental RegulationPublic Welfare
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Illinois Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. Lewis

This appellate case addresses a default judgment entered against defendants, Illinois Employers Insurance Company of Wausau and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, in a worker's compensation suit. The trial court struck the defendants' pleadings for failing to answer interrogatories and denied their request for a jury trial on damages. The appellate court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing such harsh sanctions without a prior order compelling discovery. It also found error in denying the jury trial on unliquidated damages. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Worker's CompensationDefault JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsInterrogatoriesTexas Civil ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionRight to Jury TrialDamagesAppellate ReviewRemand
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Lee

This worker's compensation case concerns Franklin N. Lee, a carpenter employed by Sabine Consolidated, Inc., who sustained severe injuries on June 28, 1975. The injury occurred after his work shift, within his employer's designated parking area on the construction site, while he was attempting to clear a path for his car by moving a company compressor. The defendant, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, appealed a jury verdict that found Lee's injury occurred in the course of his employment, challenging the application of the 'access doctrine.' The 'access doctrine' posits that employment includes a reasonable margin of time and space for an employee to pass to and from work, extending to injuries sustained on premises owned or controlled by the employer or closely related thereto. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that there was sufficient factual evidence to support the jury's finding under the access doctrine.

Worker's CompensationAccess DoctrineCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilityPremises InjuryJury VerdictAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIngress EgressTexas Civil Statute
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 16,057 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