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
Mar 23, 2012

Vasquez v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

Plaintiff Theresa Vasquez brought this action against defendant Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation after her husband, David Vasquez, died during the course of his employment at a building managed by defendant. David Vasquez fell to his death from an exhaust duct after climbing out of a scissor lift while attempting to replace ceiling tiles. The plaintiff alleged defendant was liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide proper safety devices. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim and also moved for summary judgment arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the order was modified to grant plaintiff conditional partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss based on the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provision, citing outstanding questions of fact regarding defendant's status as a special employer.

Labor LawScissor Lift AccidentFall from HeightWorksite SafetySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial EmployerStrict LiabilityProximate CauseSafety Devices
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2003

Livsey v. Main-Livingston Associates

This case involves an appeal from an order that dismissed a plaintiff's personal injury action. The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained from a slip and fall at her workplace. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, ruling that the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). This provision applies because the plaintiff and all of the defendant's partners were considered "in the same employ." The plaintiff's argument that the accident occurred while she was on her way to work, and therefore not subject to workers' compensation limitations, was rejected by the court. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal.

Personal InjurySlip and FallWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySame Employ DoctrinePremises LiabilityAppellate DecisionMotion to DismissWorkplace AccidentErie County LawStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2009

Goode v. Woodside

The plaintiff sued co-employee Scheniqua L. Woodside and Karl L. Abbadessa for personal injuries sustained in a car accident. The plaintiff and Woodside were traveling to a mandatory staff meeting in Woodside's car after returning a company bus, indicating they were co-employees acting within the scope of their employment. The plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits for his injury. Woodside moved for summary judgment dismissal, arguing the action against her was barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions. The Supreme Court denied her motion, but the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to Woodside because the plaintiff's action was barred by co-employee exclusivity and he did not suffer a 'grave injury.'

Workers' Compensation LawExclusivity provisionsCo-employee liabilitySummary judgmentPersonal injuryCar accidentScope of employmentGrave injuryAppellate reviewReversal of order
References
7
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

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

James v. F & V Distribution Co.

Plaintiff Donald James sustained a fractured ankle in a workplace accident on January 13, 2004, while painting sprinkler pipes in a warehouse owned by Merja Associates, LLC and RW 930 Flushing, LLC. He subsequently received workers' compensation benefits. Defendants Merja, 930 Flushing, and Read Property Group, LLC moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The court determined that Read Property Group, LLC qualified as James's employer for exclusivity purposes due to its significant control over Flushing Management, LLC, the direct employer. Conversely, Merja and 930 Flushing, LLC were not deemed employers under the Workers' Compensation Law, meaning the exclusivity provisions did not extend to them.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DoctrineSummary JudgmentWorkplace AccidentPersonal InjurySpecial EmploymentIndemnificationNew York LawCorporate VeilEmployer Liability
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,857 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