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. 05-21-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment in a wrongful death action. The plaintiffs, the decedent's wife and child, sued Spinks Industries, Inc., the decedent's employer, alleging strict liability under the “dual capacity” doctrine. The decedent, an employee of Spinks Industries, was killed piloting a helicopter leased by Spinks to its wholly owned subsidiary, Helix Air Transports, Inc. Spinks argued that workers' compensation provided the exclusive remedy, as the decedent was covered by their policy. The court examined the "dual capacity" doctrine and Texas workers' compensation law, ultimately rejecting the doctrine as inconsistent with the legislative intent for exclusive remedies under workers' compensation. The trial court's summary judgment in favor of Spinks Industries, Inc. was affirmed.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentDual Capacity DoctrineWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyStrict LiabilityHelicopter AccidentEmployer LiabilityTexas LawStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Steve Long, an employee of Gene Sledge Drilling Company, filed a negligence suit against his supervisor, Gregory Turner, after being shot by a gun Turner left in his company-used vehicle while Long was cleaning it at Turner's request. Long had already received workers' compensation benefits for the injury but sought additional damages from Turner. Turner moved for summary judgment, asserting the claim was barred by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision and the election of remedies doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment, which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court concluded that Turner's alleged negligent acts were imputable to their shared employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior, thereby establishing the exclusive remedy defense and barring Long's lawsuit against his supervisor.

Texas Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentNegligenceCo-employee ImmunityCourse and Scope of EmploymentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityVicarious Liability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Rolando Montemayor was injured in an automobile accident while working for Express Personnel Services, temporarily assigned to U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc. (now Waste Management, Inc.). Montemayor sought worker's compensation benefits from Express Personnel Services and also sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, asserting that the Texas Worker's Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. The trial court granted summary judgment. On appeal, Montemayor challenged the summary judgment, citing defective pleadings, improper affidavits, and unresolved fact issues regarding control. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Waste Management was Montemayor's employer under the borrowed servant doctrine, and therefore, claims against both Waste Management and Chapa were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker's Compensation Act and the fellow servant doctrine, respectively.

Borrowed Servant DoctrineFellow Servant DoctrineSummary JudgmentRespondeat SuperiorAffirmative DefensesTexas Worker's Compensation ActEmployment LawAppellate ReviewPleading RequirementsAffidavit Validity
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case concerns a common law personal injury action brought by an employee against her employer. The plaintiff was injured after falling over a roll of carpeting at work and subsequently received a settlement from the employer's compensation carrier under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Despite this, she asserted a common law action, arguing the employer was liable in a dual capacity as both employer and occupier of the premises. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the 'dual capacity' doctrine based on strong precedent from Cohn v. Spinks Industries, Inc., which emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Law represents the exclusive remedy in Texas.

Dual Capacity DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ActExclusivity ProvisionCommon Law ActionSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewLegal Precedent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Chief Justice Enoch concurs with the majority's result but dissents from their reasoning that Workers' Compensation Act claims and intentional tort claims are mutually exclusive, arguing against the applicability of the election of remedies doctrine. He asserts that intentional injuries are distinct from accidental injuries, citing established legal precedents and the historical interpretation of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act since 1913. Enoch further highlights that employees would not receive double recoveries due to the insurer's statutory subrogation rights, thus negating the need for an election of remedies. He concludes that Ramirez should be allowed to pursue his intentional tort claim without the election of remedies doctrine acting as a defense.

Workers' Compensation ActIntentional TortElection of Remedies DoctrineExclusive Remedy ProvisionAccidental InjuriesSubrogation RightsEmployer LiabilityCommon Law ActionTexas Workers' CompensationJudicial Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 01-02-00069-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Linda Koetter Bates, an employee of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (TDCJ), was injured in an accident with a TDCJ tractor while driving to work. After her workers' compensation claim was denied, Bates sued TDCJ under the Texas Tort Claims Act for negligence. TDCJ filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting Bates's exclusive remedy was under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and that she had not exhausted administrative remedies, arguing the 'access doctrine' applied. The trial court denied TDCJ's plea. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that Bates's petition sufficiently stated a claim under the Tort Claims Act and that TDCJ's argument constituted an exclusive-remedy defense rather than a jurisdictional issue.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealAccess DoctrineNegligenceSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Court
References
8
Case No. 04-24-00516-CV & 04-24-00521-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2025

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Edward Santos, performing work for B&T Dependable Services, LLC, was injured in a truck accident. B&T had workers' compensation coverage, and Texas Mutual Insurance Company provided Santos benefits. Santos subsequently sued B&T and Bernell Gardener for negligence, disputing his employment status. An administrative law judge (ALJ) previously ruled Santos was an employee, and Santos did not appeal this decision. Appellants filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Labor Code and the doctrine of election of remedies barred Santos's lawsuit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction, citing recent Supreme Court precedent that the Division of Workers' Compensation does not hold exclusive jurisdiction over negligence claims not predicated on entitlement to benefits. The court also affirmed the denial of the motion for summary judgment, concluding that appellants failed to conclusively prove every element of their affirmative defense of election of remedies.

Workers' Compensation LawNegligence ClaimExclusive Remedy DoctrineElection of RemediesSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Court ReviewSummary Judgment DenialTexas Labor CodeEmployment Status DisputeAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 5,031 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