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

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 1967

Kraft v. Texas Employment Commission

This case addresses the eligibility of William Kraft and forty-eight other employees for unemployment compensation benefits under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act. The petitioners went on strike against Shamrock Oil and Gas Corporation but later offered to return to work, only to be denied employment because their positions had been filled by permanent replacements. The central legal question revolves around whether their unemployment was still "due to the claimant’s stoppage of work because of a labor dispute" or a new, involuntary cause of unemployment due to job unavailability. The Supreme Court of Texas, referencing the precedent of Texas Employment Commission v. Hodson, ruled that when jobs are refused due to unavailability after an unconditional offer to return, the original disqualifying cause of the labor dispute is displaced. Consequently, the Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of the petitioners, allowing them to receive benefits.

Unemployment CompensationLabor DisputeStrikeJob DisplacementStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsEmployment BenefitsStoppage of WorkEconomic StrikePermanent Replacement
References
2
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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Texas Employment Commission

This case involves the construction of the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act regarding eligibility for benefits. Appellants, cotton compress and warehouse employees, filed claims after their plants were closed by owners due to an impasse in contract negotiations, which the owners termed a 'lockout.' The Texas Employment Commission denied these claims, a decision upheld by the District Court of Galveston County. The core legal question is whether unemployment due to a lockout constitutes a 'labor dispute' under Article 5221b-3, paragraph (d) of the Act, thereby disqualifying claimants from benefits despite the Act's general purpose to aid those unemployed 'through no fault of their own.' The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the specific disqualification for labor disputes overrides the general purpose clause, and a 'lockout' is indeed a labor dispute as per the statute.

Unemployment BenefitsLabor DisputeLockoutStatutory ConstructionTexas LawSubstantial Evidence RuleUnemployment Compensation ActWorker RightsEmployer-Employee RelationsJudicial 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. Miller

This is a Worker's Compensation case where Texas Employers Insurance Association (T.E.I.A.) appealed an award of death benefits to Margaret Louise Miller, the surviving beneficiary of Morris Lee Miller. Morris Miller, employed by the Florence Drane Estate, died on December 18, 1976, after being found burned in a trash pit on the property where his routine duties included burning trash. T.E.I.A. disputed whether Mr. Miller was an 'employee' at the time of his death and if his death resulted from an injury in the course and scope of his employment. A jury found in favor of Mrs. Miller, and the trial court entered judgment for maximum death benefits and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, overruling all of T.E.I.A.'s points of error.

Worker's CompensationDeath BenefitsScope of EmploymentAverage Weekly WageLump Sum Attorney's FeesJury MisconductTexas Civil StatutesIndustrial Accident BoardEmployer LiabilityBeneficiary Rights
References
8
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
Showing 1-10 of 18,544 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