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. 13-22-00115-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Charles DeRouen, Individually and DeRouen Express Services LLC D/B/A JC Express Services v. Eddie Pridgen, Individually and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC

The appellants, Charles DeRouen (individually) and DeRouen Express Services LLC, appealed a no-answer default judgment in favor of Eddie Pridgen (individually) and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC. The appellate court vacated the trial court's amended default judgment from April 27, 2022, ruling that the trial court's plenary power had expired. The court reversed and remanded the original January 12, 2022 judgment concerning DeRouen individually due to ineffective substitute service. Furthermore, the claims brought by Pridgen Welding LLC were dismissed for lack of standing. However, the court affirmed the January 12, 2022 judgment against DeRouen Express Services LLC in favor of Pridgen, finding that the entity failed to establish a meritorious defense in its motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentSubstitute ServiceDue ProcessCorporate VeilStandingAppellate ProcedurePlenary PowerMotion for New TrialBreach of ContractContractual Dispute
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chemical Express Carriers, Inc. v. Pina

Oscar Pina sued his employer, Chemical Express, for a work-related injury after its workers' compensation insurance lapsed. Pina alleged negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract for workers' compensation, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and wrongful discharge. A jury found in Pina's favor on all counts, but the appellate court found inconsistencies in the theories of recovery. The court reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment for the good faith and fair dealing and gross negligence claims. The common law negligence claim was reversed and remanded for a new trial due to a missing 'sole proximate cause' instruction. However, the $45,000 award for wrongful discrimination and termination was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceGross NegligenceWrongful DischargeBreach of ContractGood Faith and Fair DealingJury VerdictAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorSole Proximate Cause
References
21
Case No. 01-10-01080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2013

DHL Express (USA), Inc. v. Falcon Express International, Inc.

Falcon Express International (Falcon) sued DHL Express (USA), Inc. (DHL) for rescission of an assignment and assumption agreement and punitive damages, alleging fraud by non-disclosure. Falcon claimed DHL failed to disclose its plans to exit the domestic package delivery market before Falcon assumed a third-party's debt and reseller agreement with DHL. DHL countersued for breach of contract. A jury awarded Falcon $1.7 million in rescission damages and $3.2 million in punitive damages, while awarding $0 to DHL on its counterclaim. DHL appealed, arguing Falcon's fraud claim was preempted by the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) and Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (FAAAA), and that the $0 damages for its counterclaim were factually insufficient. The Court of Appeals agreed with DHL, reversing the trial court's judgment regarding Falcon's fraud claim and punitive damages, dismissing that claim, and remanding DHL's counterclaim for breach of contract for further proceedings.

Fraudulent InducementNon-disclosureBreach of ContractPreemptionAirline Deregulation ActFederal Aviation Administration Authorization ActAir CarrierMotor CarrierReseller AgreementPunitive Damages
References
23
Case No. 2016-06-0702
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2017

Willis, Earl Dwain v. Express Towing

In this interlocutory appeal, tow truck driver Earl Dwain Willis sought workers' compensation benefits for an ankle injury. The purported employer, Express Towing, contended it was exempt from statutory insurance requirements, claiming it employed fewer than five people. The trial court, presided over by Judge Joshua D. Baker, ruled that Express Towing and a related operation by Michael Copeland constituted a single business entity, employing at least five individuals, thus obligating Express Towing to provide coverage. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the evidence supported the finding of a unified business and the employment of five or more people, including Mr. Jarrell, triggering the workers' compensation insurance requirement. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEmployment LawIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationBusiness EntityInterlocutory AppealTowing ServicesSmall Business ExemptionCredibilityStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. M2011-00653-WC-R3-WC
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2012

Danneil Edward Keith v. Western Express, Inc.

The employee, Danneil Edward Keith, a truck driver, was injured in a vehicle accident while on duty. His employer, Western Express, Inc., denied workers' compensation benefits, citing the employee's willful violation of established safety rules, specifically hours-of-service regulations. The trial court found in favor of the employer, concluding that the employee willfully and intentionally disregarded these rules. On appeal, the employee argued that the evidence did not establish the necessary "perverseness" for the willful misconduct defense. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court's decision, determining that the employee's failure to comply with the hours-of-service rules was willful, and his explanation lacked credibility.

Workers' CompensationTruck DriverSafety Rules ViolationWillful MisconductHours of ServiceAffirmative DefensePerversenessCredibilityMethadone DisclosureTraffic Accident
References
13
Case No. 13-19-00374-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2021

JNM Express, LLC, ANCA Transport, Inc., Omega Freight Logistics, LLC, Jorge Marin, and Silvia Marin v. Lauro Lozano Jr. and Irene Lozano

Lauro Lozano Jr. and Irene Lozano sued JNM Express, LLC, ANCA Transport, Inc., Omega Freight Logistics, LLC, Jorge Marin, and Silvia Marin for negligence and gross negligence. The suit stemmed from a May 2015 eighteen-wheeler accident where Lauro fell asleep at the wheel, allegedly due to appellants' insistence on violating federal driver fatigue regulations. A jury found the businesses negligent and grossly negligent, awarding significant actual and exemplary damages to the Lozanos. The trial court subsequently reduced the exemplary damages. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed most of the judgment but reversed the portion holding Jorge and Silvia Marin jointly and severally liable for exemplary damages, citing statutory restrictions on joint liability for such awards.

Trucking accidentCommercial motor vehicleDriver fatigueNegligenceGross negligenceCorporate veil piercingJoint and several liabilityExemplary damagesFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsTexas Court of Appeals
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Colin v. Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

The claimant, a for-hire driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident, naming Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc. and Yolette Kernisan as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claimant was an independent contractor of Express. On appeal, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the finding that the claimant was not an employee of Yolette Kernisan and remitting the matter for further consideration regarding Kernisan's relationship with the claimant, citing an improper control standard. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of no employment relationship with Express, supported by substantial evidence regarding drivers supplying their own vehicles and expenses, and ability to work for other companies.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceVehicle OwnershipControl TestRemittalAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03329
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2023

Castro v. Wythe Gardens, LLC

The plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained injuries after tripping in a gap between a staircase step and landing. He initiated an action against Express Builders, the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6). Express Builders then filed third-party claims seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed a third-party indemnification claim. The Appellate Division modified this ruling, determining that Labor Law section 240(1) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(b)(1)(i) were not applicable to the plaintiff's injuries as they did not involve elevation-related risks or a hazardous opening for a complete fall. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for the plaintiff under Labor Law section 241(6), based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7(e)(1) pertaining to tripping hazards. The Appellate Division also reinstated the contractual indemnification claim against Bayport Construction Corp., citing triable issues of fact, and upheld the denial of Express Builders' indemnification claims against Urban Precast and Urban Erectors due to unresolved questions regarding Express Builders' own negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial Code ViolationSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationTripping HazardElevation-Related RiskAppellate DivisionPersonal InjurySubcontractor Agreement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Bollier

Appellee Bollier sued appellant Railway Express Agency, Inc. for personal injuries sustained while lifting mail sacks as a messenger's helper. The appellant, a non-subscriber to workmen's compensation, was found negligent by a jury for failing to provide a safe workspace with adequate aisle width, which was the proximate cause of Bollier's injuries. The trial court entered judgment for Bollier, awarding $2,000. Appellant appealed, raising points regarding foreseeability, transitory conditions, and alleged irreconcilable jury findings concerning "risks incident to the work." The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's negligence findings and rejecting the appellant's other contentions, specifically stating the "risk incident" defense was incomplete without an inquiry into "sole proximate cause."

Personal InjuryEmployer NegligenceUnsafe Working ConditionsWorkmen's Compensation Non-SubscriberProximate CauseContributory NegligenceForeseeabilityAppellate ReviewJury VerdictRisk Incident to Work
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Getty Oil Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America

Getty Oil Company sued NL Industries, Inc. and its insurers (INA and Youell) for breach of contract to provide insurance coverage, following a wrongful death judgment against Getty. The dispute arose from an explosion of chemicals purchased from NL, resulting in a jury finding Getty 100% negligent. Getty sought reimbursement, arguing NL's insurance should cover its liability under a purchase order provision. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, citing the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Statute, express negligence rule, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court of appeals affirmed based on res judicata. The Supreme Court partially affirmed, holding Getty's claims against NL were barred by res judicata as they arose from the same transaction as previous litigation. However, the Court reversed the judgment regarding Getty's claims against NL's insurers (INA and Youell), finding those claims were not barred by res judicata due to 'no action' policy provisions and procedural rules preventing their joinder in the prior suit. The Court also held the Anti-Indemnity Statute and express negligence doctrine did not invalidate the additional insured provision for NL's insurers.

Oilfield Anti-Indemnity StatuteInsurance CoverageContractual IndemnityRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelExpress Negligence RuleTexas Civil LawContract InterpretationAdditional Insured ProvisionsLiability Insurance
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 14,767 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