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

Hector Garza v. Zachry Construction Corporation, Zachry Industrial, Inc., Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez

Hector Garza, a DuPont operator, was injured in a railcar accident involving Zachry Construction Corp. employees, Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez. Garza received workers' compensation benefits from DuPont and subsequently sued Zachry, Morales, and Rodriguez for negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Garza's claims were barred by the workers' compensation exclusive remedy under Texas Labor Code section 408.001, which applies to subcontractors via section 406.128. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment. On appeal, Garza argued that Zachry's employees were not DuPont's "deemed employees" for exclusive remedy purposes and that applying the bar violated the Texas Constitution's open courts provision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the contract between DuPont and Zachry did not negate the "deemed employer" status for workers' compensation purposes and that the workers' compensation benefits constituted an adequate quid pro quo for the relinquishment of common-law claims, thus not violating the open courts guarantee.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityExclusive Remedy BarSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Open Courts ProvisionLabor Code InterpretationSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimsDeemed Employer StatusFellow Employee DoctrineContractual Agreement
References
19
Case No. 09-23-00258-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2025

Glenn Eric Lilly v. Michael Scott Weisinger

Glenn Eric Lilly appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Michael Scott Weisinger, which held that the exclusive-remedy provision of the workers’ compensation statute barred Lilly’s negligence suit. Lilly sustained injuries while tedding hay on Weisinger's personal farm property and alleged Weisinger was individually negligent and not a workers' compensation subscriber for those operations. Weisinger argued that Lilly was an employee of Weisinger Inc., covered by its workers' compensation insurance, making the exclusive-remedy provision applicable. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that Lilly was indeed an employee of Weisinger Inc. at the time of the incident and therefore his claims against Weisinger were barred by the exclusive remedies provision of the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimEmployment LawPersonal InjuryTexas Labor CodeCourse and Scope of EmploymentAppellate ReviewHay Tedder Injury
References
10
Case No. 11-04-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2005

Fernando Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing

Fernando Morales, a temporary employee, sued Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing for negligence after sustaining a hand injury at Martin Resources' Odessa facility. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed whether the defendants had sufficiently proven their workers' compensation insurance coverage, a necessary condition for the exclusive remedy provision to apply. The court found that neither Select Professional Staffing nor Martin Resources, Inc. provided adequate evidence of explicit workers' compensation coverage for themselves. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the burden of proof for establishing affirmative defenses like the exclusive remedy provision.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedySummary Judgment ReversalTemporary EmployeesStaff LeasingNegligence ClaimsAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployer LiabilityTexas Labor Law
References
8
Case No. 05-21-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

Murphy Oil USA, Inc. D/B/A Murphy Oil USA 7350 v. Donnetta Stegall

Donnetta Stegall, an employee of Murphy Oil USA, Inc., sued her employer for premises liability after falling in the store's parking lot and injuring her ankle before her scheduled shift. Murphy Oil appealed the trial court's judgment in Stegall's favor, asserting that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA) provided the exclusive remedy, thereby barring Stegall's common law claim. The central legal question was whether Stegall's injury occurred within the "course and scope of employment," which would activate the TWCA's exclusive remedy provision, specifically considering the "going-to-and-from-work" exclusion and the "access doctrine" exception. The appellate court determined that the "access doctrine" did not apply because the parking lot was accessible to the general public, not exclusively designated for employees. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Stegall's injury was not work-related under the TWCA, and thus the exclusive remedy provision did not preclude her premises liability claim.

Premises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionCourse and Scope of EmploymentAccess DoctrineGoing-to-and-from-work RuleEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. 02-19-00370-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2020

Kyra Robinson v. Heidi Bruegel Cox

Kyra Robinson sued her coworker, Heidi Bruegel Cox, for bodily injuries sustained when Cox's border collie bit her at their workplace. Robinson's petition claimed strict liability and gross negligence against Cox. After receiving workers' compensation benefits from Gladney's compensation carrier, Robinson proceeded to sue Cox for the same injury. Cox moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the exclusive-remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court granted Cox's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Robinson challenged this, contending that Cox's act of bringing the dog to work was not within the scope of her employment, thus making the exclusive-remedy provision inapplicable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Cox's act of bringing the dog to Gladney to assist as a comfort dog, at the request of residents and staff, was within the course and scope of her employment, thereby extending the exclusive-remedy defense to Cox.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionSummary JudgmentCourse and Scope of EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorCoworker LiabilityDog Bite InjuryBodily Injury ClaimAppellate Court DecisionTexas Workers' Compensation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Synergy Management Group, L.L.C. v. Kenneth Thompson

Kenneth Thompson, an employee of Alliance Savings Co., Inc. assigned to Synergy Management Group, L.L.C.'s facility, sustained injuries in a conveyor belt accident on July 2, 2004. His medical bills and weekly benefits were covered by workers' compensation insurance. Thompson sued Synergy for negligence and gross negligence, alleging he was an employee of both Synergy and Alliance. Synergy argued that Thompson's claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA) under the Staff Leasing Services Act (SLSA), claiming co-employer status with Alliance Savings Co., Inc. The trial court denied Synergy's motion for summary judgment and directed verdict, and later its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), after a jury found in Thompson's favor, awarding actual and exemplary damages. On appeal, Synergy contended the trial court erred in ruling that the exclusive remedy provision did not bar Thompson's claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Synergy failed to conclusively establish its exclusive remedy defense because it did not prove Alliance Savings Co., Inc. was a licensed staff leasing services company under the SLSA.

NegligenceGross NegligenceWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyStaff Leasing Services ActCo-EmployerJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictDirected VerdictAffirmative DefenseLegal Sufficiency
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Aztec Rig Equipment, Inc.

William Brown and his wife, Mary, filed a negligence suit against Aztec Rig Equipment, Inc. (Aztec) and Administaff, Inc. (Administaff) following Mr. Brown's alleged personal injuries on Aztec's premises. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the suit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, which the trial court granted. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Administaff and Aztec were co-employers of Mr. Brown for workers' compensation purposes. The court found that Aztec had coverage through Administaff and complied with notice provisions, making the exclusive remedy provision applicable. Therefore, the Browns' negligence suit against both entities was barred.

Summary Judgment AppealExclusive Remedy DefenseCo-Employer LiabilityStaff Leasing ArrangementWorker Injury ClaimsEmployer Immunity TexasNegligence Suit BarredContract ValidityEmployment At WillConstructive Notice Coverage
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. City of Lubbock

Robert Smith, an employee of the City of Lubbock, sought recovery under an underinsured/uninsured motorist policy after suffering work-related injuries from an intoxicated driver, despite having received workers' compensation benefits. Smith appealed summary judgments in favor of the City and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, arguing that the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Labor Code did not bar contractual claims against his employer. The court affirmed the summary judgment for the City, ruling that the workers' compensation benefits serve as the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries, irrespective of whether the claim arises from tort or contract. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for St. Paul and remanded that aspect of the appeal for further proceedings. The decision highlights the broad scope of the workers' compensation exclusivity provision in Texas.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyUnderinsured Motorist PolicyUninsured Motorist PolicySummary JudgmentContractual ClaimTort ClaimStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeEmployer Liability
References
15
Case No. Dkt. 319, Dkt. 146, Dkt. 105
Regular Panel Decision

Fisher v. Halliburton

This case addresses motions for summary judgment filed by defendants (Halliburton, KBRI, KBRSI, Brown & Root Services, and SEII) against plaintiffs (Fisher, Lane, and Smith-Idol). The plaintiffs were civilian drivers for fuel convoys in Iraq, working for the defendants under a contract with the U.S. Army, and sustained injuries during insurgent attacks in April 2004. The core legal question revolves around the scope of the Defense Base Act’s (DBA) exclusivity provision, specifically whether the plaintiffs' injuries qualify as "accidents" or "willful acts of third parties" under the DBA, thereby limiting their remedies to workers' compensation. The court ruled that for plaintiff Smith-Idol, the injury was accidental, granting summary judgment to the defendants and confirming DBA as the exclusive remedy. However, for plaintiffs Fisher and Lane, the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether their injuries were "expected" by the defendants, given numerous prior warnings and ongoing attacks, thus denying summary judgment in part. The court also clarified that the attacks were not "willful acts of a third party directed against an employee because of his employment" in the narrow sense intended by the statute, as the insurgents were targeting all Americans, not specifically truck drivers. All named defendants were confirmed as employers under the DBA. The court, on its own motion, certified the controlling question of the DBA’s exclusivity provision for immediate interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit and stayed the cases of Fisher and Lane.

Defense Base Act (DBA)Longshore Act (LHWCA)Summary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealStatutory InterpretationEmployer ImmunityAccidental InjuryIntentional Tort ExceptionWar Hazards Compensation Act (WHCA)Fifth Circuit Precedent
References
61
Showing 1-10 of 5,896 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