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

Texas Employment Commission v. Hughes Drilling Fluids

John H. Bodessa was discharged by Hughes Drilling Fluids for refusing to submit a urine sample for drug-screening, a requirement under company policy. Initially, the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) granted Bodessa unemployment benefits, but Hughes successfully appealed this in county court, obtaining a summary judgment that disqualified Bodessa. The TEC then appealed this summary judgment, contending that the company's drug-screening policy was unreasonable, their initial decision was supported by evidence, and Bodessa did not violate the policy. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Bodessa's continued employment after notification constituted consent to the policy and that Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures do not apply to private employer actions. The court found the policy reasonable and a valid basis for disqualifying Bodessa from unemployment benefits due to misconduct.

Drug screeningUnemployment benefitsEmployee misconductAt-will employmentCompany policyFourth AmendmentRight to privacyTexas lawSummary judgmentAppellate review
References
14
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. Dyess

This case addresses the subrogation rights of a workers' compensation carrier (Employers Casualty Co.) in relation to the employer's uninsured motorist coverage provided by Northbrook Property and Casualty Co. Carl L. Dyess, Jr., an employee, received workers' compensation benefits from Employers after being struck by an uninsured driver, Felipe Mendoza, during his employment. Dyess then sought recovery under his employer's uninsured motorist policy with Northbrook. Employers intervened, asserting statutory, contractual, and equitable subrogation rights for the benefits paid. The trial court granted summary judgment against Employers, ruling its subrogation rights did not extend to uninsured motorist coverage. The appellate court reversed, holding that statutory subrogation rights are not limited to third-party tortfeasors and that policy clauses attempting to abrogate these statutory rights are invalid. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, emphasizing the carrier's right to reimbursement to prevent double recovery by the employee.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation RightsUninsured Motorist CoverageSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationContractual LiabilityEquitable SubrogationInsurance LawTexas LawThird-Party Tortfeasor
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandas Industries, Inc. v. Employers Fire Insurance Co.

Employers Fire Insurance Company, the appellee, sued Bandas Industries, Inc., the appellant, in Bell County district court to recover $36,354.00 in retrospective premiums on two insurance policies (worker’s compensation and comprehensive general liability). The policies, effective from June 1975 to June 1976, included a retrospective premium endorsement allowing for adjustment based on loss experience. Bandas Industries, Inc. argued the retrospective premium provision was unconscionable and counterclaimed for $100,000.00 due to policy cancellation. The district court ruled in favor of Employers Fire Insurance Company, finding the contract conscionable and denying the counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, overruling Bandas Industries, Inc.'s points of error regarding unconscionability, parol evidence, policy cancellability, and the existence of a safety program.

Workers' compensationRetrospective premiumInsurance contractUnconscionabilityContract cancellationParol evidenceFindings of factConclusions of lawAppellate reviewJudgment affirmed
References
4
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

Tex. Employers' Ass'n v. Price

This appeal concerns a worker's compensation claim filed by Price, a Texas employee of Goetting, who sustained an injury in New Mexico while on temporary assignment. Goetting held workers' compensation insurance in both Texas (with the appellant, Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n) and New Mexico. Price received compensation under the New Mexico policy, leading the appellant to contend against double recovery and that Price's claim was barred due to late filing. The court affirmed the judgment, ruling that Price was indeed a Texas employee covered by the Texas policy, that obtaining compensation under both state policies was not against public policy, and that sufficient good cause was demonstrated for the delay in filing due to Price's incapacitation and assurances from the insurer's agent. The court further upheld the method for calculating Price's compensation.

Workers' CompensationInterstate Employment InjuryInsurance Coverage DisputeTimeliness of ClaimGood Cause ExceptionDouble RecoveryTexas LawNew Mexico LawEmployer LiabilityMedical Assessment
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moffett v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n.

W. J. Day filed a workman's compensation suit against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association after sustaining injuries on December 24, 1943, while working at a parking lot. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurance carrier, leading Day's heir, Stella Moffett, to appeal. The core legal question was whether Day's parking lot employment was covered by the employer Ballard Burgher's insurance policy, which primarily listed construction-related classifications. An endorsement adding parking lot coverage was made retroactively after the injury. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the insurance agent lacked authority to issue a retroactive endorsement for a pre-existing loss and that Day was not an employee of Ballard Burgher in the insured business at the time of injury, as the parking lot was a distinct operation under Overpass Auto Park, Inc.

Workmen's CompensationInsurance Policy CoverageRetroactive EndorsementEmployer LiabilityScope of EmploymentSeparate BusinessesAgent AuthorityPre-existing LossAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
9
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

Claim of Johnson v. Via Taxi, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained on March 31, 2007. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) denied coverage, citing the employer's prior policy cancellation due to nonpayment in 2003 and an outstanding balance at the time of reapplication in December 2006. SIF informed the employer in January 2007 that a new policy required debt satisfaction. Although the debt was cleared in March 2007, the employer did not reapply until May 11, 2007, making the new policy effective only from that date. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the employer lacked coverage on the injury date and imposed penalties under Workers’ Compensation Law § 26-a. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence for the Board's decision and rejecting the employer's estoppel argument.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoverageUninsured EmployerPenaltiesState Insurance FundPolicy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumsEstoppelAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 16,783 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