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

Johnston Testers v. Rangel

Jose Rangel, an employee of Sam Howell Drilling Company, filed a third-party action against Johnston Testers for injuries sustained during an oil well testing operation. Rangel was struck by a falling pipe section called a 'sub' that became unscrewed. The jury awarded Rangel $74,598.00 for damages, including diminished earning capacity and medical expenses. Johnston Testers appealed, alleging trial court errors regarding special issues on sole proximate cause, evidence sufficiency for defendant's employee negligence, and defenses of borrowed servant and volenti non fit injuria. The appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

oil field injurynegligencethird-party actionworkers' compensationproximate causeborrowed servantvolenti non fit injuriajury instructionsappellate reviewpersonal injury
References
23
Case No. 15
Regular Panel Decision

Dyson v. Stuart Petroleum Testers, Inc.

Plaintiff Rory Dyson initiated a collective action against Stuart Petroleum Testers, Inc. and Scott Yariger, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Dyson, a 'flow tester,' claimed that he and other similarly situated workers were misclassified as independent contractors and consequently denied overtime pay for hours exceeding forty per week. The plaintiff filed a motion seeking conditional certification of the lawsuit as a collective action under the FLSA. Applying the lenient Lusardi two-stage approach, the Court found sufficient evidence indicating the existence of similarly situated individuals and a widespread discriminatory practice by the defendants. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, established the definition of the collective action, and ordered the defendants to provide contact information for potential class members.

FLSACollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime PayIndependent Contractor MisclassificationFlow TestersOil and Gas IndustryWage and Hour DisputeOpt-in PlaintiffsLusardi Approach
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shelley v. Flow International Corp.

A plaintiff sued multiple defendants after sustaining injuries in a work-related accident while operating a hydromilling tractor on a highway construction site. The claims against the general contractor, I & OA Slutzky, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 violations, were dismissed due to lack of supervision, and other Labor Law claims were abandoned by the plaintiff. Claims against Flow International Corporation, the plaintiff's employer, were dismissed based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions. However, the court erred in dismissing the complaint against Flow Services Corporation, a subcontractor, as there were triable issues of fact regarding the plaintiff's consent to a special employment relationship and whether Flow Services and Flow International acted as a single corporate entity. Consequently, the order was modified to reinstate the complaint against Flow Services Corporation, while remaining affirmed for the other defendants.

Work-related accidentHighway constructionHydromilling tractor injuryCommon-law negligenceLabor Law claimsSummary judgmentGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor liabilitySpecial employment relationshipCorporate alter ego doctrine
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hutchinson v. Fahs-Rolston Paving Co.

Fahs-Rolston Paving Company appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision that held them solely liable for workers’ compensation benefits paid to a claimant. The claimant, an employee of Fahs-Rolston, suffered a heart attack while operating specialized hydrodemolition machinery that Fahs-Rolston subcontracted from Flow Services, Inc. Fahs-Rolston argued the claimant was a 'special employee' of Flow Services at the time of injury, thereby shifting liability. However, both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that Fahs-Rolston remained the claimant's general employer. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported the Board’s decision, citing Fahs-Rolston’s control over the claimant's work, salary, and right to hire or fire.

Workers' CompensationGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployeeLiability DisputeSubcontractorEmployment RelationshipHeart AttackAppellate ReviewControl TestWorkers' Compensation Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Keller v. Wilson

The Wilsons, landowners in Keller, sued the City of Keller for inverse condemnation and water code violations, and also sued developers (Bursey, Texas Rover, Tri-West) for trespass and water code violations due to increased water flow and damage to their property. The City's Master Drainage Plan required an easement across the Wilson property, but the City only implemented parts of the plan, leading to uncontrolled water flow from upstream developments. The jury found in favor of the Wilsons against the City for inverse condemnation. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, finding sufficient evidence that the City intentionally chose not to complete its drainage plan across the Wilson property, knowing damage was substantially certain to result. The court also affirmed the summary judgments granted to the developers, concluding that the City's direct involvement in drainage control severed the causal link between the developers' actions and the damage, and that the developers lacked the requisite intent for trespass.

Inverse CondemnationWater Code ViolationsTrespassLandowner RightsSurface Water DrainageMunicipal LiabilityReal Estate DevelopmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIntent
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 1999

Claim of Flow v. Mark IV Construction Co.

Claimant incurred a work-related injury in March 1995 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. In May 1997, the employer's carrier suspended payments due to claimant's gainful employment. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found no fraud for activities post-April 16, 1997, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision, disqualifying claimant from further wage replacement benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a for knowingly receiving benefits under false pretenses. The claimant appealed, arguing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a is unconstitutionally vague and that the substantial evidence standard of review should not apply, but the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding the statute constitutional and the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-afraudfalse statementwage replacement benefitsconstitutional vagueness challengestatutory interpretationsubstantial evidenceappellate reviewadministrative decisiondisqualification of benefits
References
3
Case No. ADJ6984624
Regular
Dec 11, 2013

LUIS JASSO vs. WYATT SUBMETERING INC., FLOW CONSTRUCTION CO., TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration after lien claimants were dismissed for failing to pay a lien activation fee. This fee requirement was subsequently enjoined by a federal district court. Consequently, the Board rescinded the dismissal orders for the lien claimants. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code section 4903.06Preliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRescinded ordersReturned to trial levelWCJFederal district court
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agresti v. Silverstein Properties, Inc.

Plaintiff was injured when an improvised scaffold collapsed, causing a wooden plank to fall and strike him in the head. The court affirmed the partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the defendants. It was found that the makeshift scaffold was inadequate as a safety device and the harm flowed directly from the force of gravity. The court also determined that the lack of certainty regarding the accident's exact preceding events or the failure to pinpoint a specific defect in the scaffold did not warrant denying the motion for summary judgment.

Scaffold collapseWorkplace injuryLabor Law violationSummary judgmentAppellate decisionConstruction accidentGravity-related incidentSafety deviceLiabilityNew York jurisprudence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 1983

Claim of Molyneux v. New York Telephone Co.

Claimant, a tester for 35 years, sustained a work-related back injury. Both physicians diagnosed him with permanent partial disability. The employer offered sedentary work with reduced hours, but the claimant retired, citing severe pain from prolonged sitting/standing, inability to lift, and the exacerbation of his condition due to crowded public transport commutes, which his own and the employer's physician also advised against. The Workers’ Compensation Board credited his testimony, concluding his retirement was not solely due to non-disability factors. The board's decision was subsequently affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketRetirementCommuting IssuesPhysician's OpinionSedentary Work OfferBoard Decision AffirmedSubstantial EvidenceBack Injury
References
2
Case No. 03-04-00731-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2006

CenterPoint Energy Entex v. Railroad Commission of Texas, Victor Carrillo, Elizabeth A. Jones, Michael Williams, City of Tyler and State of Texas

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses whether the Texas Railroad Commission (the Commission) has the authority to conduct a retroactive prudence review of gas charges flowed through a purchased gas adjustment (PGA) clause and to order refunds. The court concluded that the Commission possesses this authority, finding it does not violate the filed rate doctrine or the rule against retroactive ratemaking. Additionally, the court examined whether such a review qualifies as a 'ratemaking proceeding' for the purpose of municipal expense reimbursement. It determined that a prudence review is not a ratemaking proceeding, thereby reversing the district court's decision regarding expense reimbursement for the City of Tyler.

Gas Utility RegulationPurchased Gas Adjustment (PGA)Retroactive Prudence ReviewRatemaking ProceedingsExpense ReimbursementFiled Rate DoctrineRetroactive RatemakingTexas Utility CodeAdministrative Agency PowersRegulatory Oversight
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 29 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