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

Claim of Johnson v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the employment status of a decedent. The decedent, a staff physician at Bellevue Hospital, was murdered. Her husband, the claimant, filed a wrongful death action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC), which operated Bellevue. NYCHHC argued it was the decedent's special employer, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that New York University Medical Center (NYU) was the decedent's sole employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, citing substantial evidence that NYU provided all professional services at Bellevue, employed and supervised the physicians, and controlled the details of their work, even though NYCHHC had general hospital oversight. The court reiterated that when evidence supports both general and special employment, the ultimate determination is a question of fact for the Board, and its decision stands if supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployer LiabilityWrongful Death ActionPhysician EmploymentHospital Affiliation AgreementSubstantial EvidenceQuestion of FactJudicial Review
References
7
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. 07-01-0322-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2002

Texas Worker's Compensation Insurance Fund v. Alisha Byrd, Beneficiary of Melvin R. Byrd, Richard Walters and Pacific Employers Insurance Company

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund appealed a summary judgment that favored Alisha Byrd, Richard Walters, and Pacific Employers Insurance Company. The Fund sought to overturn decisions by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission’s Appeals Panel regarding the employment status of Melvin Byrd and Richard Walters at the time of their injuries. The core dispute revolved around whether Elliott Machine Shop or Entergy/Gulf States was the employer under the "borrowed servant" doctrine. The trial court affirmed the Commission’s finding that Elliott was the employer. The Court of Appeals found no inconsistency in the contractual provisions concerning employer control and deemed PEIC’s summary judgment evidence sufficient to negate the "borrowed servant" claim. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, overruling all of the Fund’s issues.

Borrowed Servant DoctrineSummary Judgment ReviewEmployer Liability DisputeInsurance Coverage ClaimAppeals Panel DecisionsContract InterpretationRight of Control TestEmployee Status DeterminationAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Procedure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Dossey

Dossey, a Texas resident, was hired in Texas by Lowe Drilling Company, whose principal office was in Midland, Texas, to work in both Texas and New Mexico oil fields. He sustained an injury in New Mexico. The trial court and Court of Civil Appeals had ruled in favor of Dossey, granting him total and permanent disability under Texas Workmen's Compensation Law. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed these judgments, stating that while an employee hired in Texas to work in both states can maintain Texas employee status even if initially working out of state, the evidence regarding the specific terms of Dossey's employment contract was inconclusive as to whether he was hired to work in Texas as well as New Mexico. The Court concluded that the trial court erred by not submitting this factual question to the jury. The case is now remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to ascertain Dossey's Texas employee status.

Workmen's CompensationExtraterritorial JurisdictionTexas LawNew Mexico InjuryContract InterpretationEmployee StatusOil and Gas IndustryRemandInterstate EmploymentJury Question
References
10
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

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Stott

Texas Employers’ Insurance Association appealed a lump sum attorney’s fee award in a workers’ compensation death case after filing an interpleader and tendering payments. The original dispute involved Mary Stott, claiming common law wife status, and Garnett Stott, the surviving mother of the deceased, Daniel A. Stott, over death benefits. The trial court's award of lump sum attorney's fees was challenged by Texas Employers' based on Article 8306, Section 8(d), Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat., which mandates periodic payments when the carrier admits liability and the dispute is solely between beneficiaries. The appellate court found that liability was indeed admitted by the carrier and the case was tried on that theory, thus requiring periodic attorney's fee payments. Consequently, the judgment awarding lump sum attorney's fees was reversed and the case remanded for entry of a judgment consistent with this opinion.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesLump Sum PaymentPeriodic PaymentInterpleaderBeneficiary DisputeAdmitted LiabilityTexas LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fina v. New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority

The case involves a claimant who injured his leg while serving as a volunteer ski patroller. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and the New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority, despite the claimant's initial volunteer status being established without controversy. The Board's decision reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's determination that the claimant, a volunteer, was entitled to benefits based on his regular vocation as a self-employed engineer. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination of an employer-employee relationship, noting that the Board relied solely on the claimant's testimony from a time when his volunteer status was undisputed. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for a review of the claimant's average weekly wage based on his volunteer status.

Employer-Employee RelationshipVolunteer StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAverage Weekly WageSubstantial EvidenceScope of Board ReviewSki PatrolGore Mountain Ski CenterNew York State Olympic Regional Development AuthorityRemand
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 1951

Hale v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INS. ASS'N.

Petitioner Hale, an oil field worker and Texas resident, was temporarily laid off by his employer, Warren and Bradshaw Drilling Company, in April 1949, with the understanding he would be called back. After taking temporary jobs, he was rehired by the same company in July 1949 for a temporary assignment in New Mexico, where he was injured on July 10, 1949. The core legal question was whether Hale maintained the 'status of a Texas employee' under the extraterritorial provisions of the Texas Workmen's Compensation Law (Article 8306, Section 19), despite the layoff and intervening work. The trial court awarded compensation, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, finding no evidence of continued Texas employee status. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals, holding that a temporary layoff and intervening temporary work for other employers do not necessarily sever the employer-employee relationship, especially when there is an expectation of resuming work. The Court clarified that the 'status of a Texas employee' is not used in a narrow or technical sense and that the duration of the layoff must be reasonable. The case was remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals to review the sufficiency of the evidence.

Workmen's Compensation LawExtraterritorialityTexas Employee StatusTemporary LayoffOil Field WorkersEmployer-Employee RelationshipContract of HireInjury out of StateReversal and RemandStatutory Construction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 16,049 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