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
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. 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. 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

Mournet v. Educational & Cultural Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry

The plaintiff was injured after slipping and falling at premises owned by the Educational and Cultural Trust Fund of the Electrical Industry (ECT), where her employer, Prudential Recreation Corp., doing business as JIB Lanes (JIB), leased space. The plaintiff sued both ECT and JIB. ECT asserted an affirmative defense that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy, claiming it was an alter ego of JIB. ECT moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint against it, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6), (17). The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that ECT failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, particularly regarding JIB’s control over ECT’s day-to-day operations. Further discovery was also deemed warranted due to ECT's exclusive knowledge of some facts.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrinePersonal InjurySlip and FallAppellate ReviewDiscoveryPrima Facie EntitlementEmployer LiabilityRelated Entities
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mize v. Conagra, Inc.

This case involves wrongful death actions brought by plaintiffs following an explosion and fire at Conagra, Inc.'s manufacturing facility, which resulted in the deaths of employees. The trial court granted summary judgments to Conagra, ruling that the Workers' Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy. On appeal, plaintiffs argued that the employer's gross negligence and violation of safety regulations constituted an intentional tort, bypassing the exclusive remedy. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgments, emphasizing that Tennessee law distinguishes gross negligence from actual intent to injure. The court also upheld the constitutionality of the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Act against due process challenges.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionIntentional Tort ExceptionWrongful DeathGross NegligenceOccupational Safety and Health ActSummary JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeDue ProcessEmployer Liability
References
12
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Bellaire and Rosa Larson v. Elbert Johnson

This case addresses the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Labor Code in the context of workers' compensation. Elbert Johnson, a worker provided by Magnum Staffing Services, Inc. to the City of Bellaire, was injured and subsequently sued the City and its employee, Rosa Larson. The City and Larson argued governmental immunity due to workers' compensation being Johnson's exclusive remedy. The trial court dismissed the case, but the court of appeals reversed, questioning if Johnson was 'actually' covered by the City's insurance. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the appellate court, holding that Johnson was an employee of the City as a matter of law, and his exclusive remedy was workers' compensation benefits. Therefore, the City retained its immunity, and Johnson's claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Workers' compensationExclusive remedy doctrineGovernmental immunityEmployee classificationStaffing agency liabilityBorrowed servant doctrinePlea to the jurisdictionSummary judgmentTexas Tort Claims ActStatutory construction
References
6
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harman v. Moore's Quality Snack Foods, Inc.

Kimberly Dawn Harman and her husband sued Moore’s Quality Snack Foods, Inc., alleging sexual harassment and discrimination in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) and Federal Civil Rights Acts, also claiming outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing the claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Worker’s Compensation Act (TWCA). The chancellor initially found an implied repeal of the TWCA's exclusive remedy concerning THRA claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the outcome that the plaintiffs' claims under the THRA were not barred but rejected the chancellor's reasoning of implied repeal. The appellate court distinguished the purposes of the two acts, holding that THRA claims for non-physical injuries like humiliation and emotional distress are separate from physical injuries covered by TWCA, and thus, not barred by its exclusive remedy.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationTennessee Human Rights ActWorker's Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionImplied RepealStatutory ConstructionEmotional DistressLoss of ConsortiumAppellate Review
References
30
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,230 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