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. 03-10-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

the Texas Department of Transportation, and Amadeo Saenz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Director of Texas Department of Transportation v. Sunset Transportation, Inc. MEL Transport, Inc. D/B/A Magnum Transportation And Sunset Prosper, Inc.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and its executive director appealed a district court order denying their plea to the jurisdiction regarding claims by Sunset Transportation, Inc., MEL Transport, Inc. d/b/a Magnum Transportation, Inc., and Sunset Prosper, Inc. Appellants contended that the claims, brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), were barred by sovereign immunity. The court found Appellees' APA claims lacked sufficient factual pleading but allowed an opportunity to amend. However, the district court's denial of the plea concerning UDJA claims was affirmed, as some allegations invoked the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying the plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative LawMotor Carrier RegulationFederal PreemptionState Agency AuthorityTransportation LawJurisdictionStatutory ConstructionRegulatory Challenge
References
20
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golden v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case addresses a challenge to the implementation of a one-way toll system on the Verrazano Narrows Bridge, a change mandated by the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 1986. Petitioners, including Howard Golden and James A. Stratton, argued that the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS). The Supreme Court agreed that the action was not purely ministerial and thus subject to SEQRA, but denied a preliminary injunction to halt the toll system. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, citing that reversing the system would cause substantial expense, driver confusion, and highlighted the non-joinder of the State of New York as a necessary party. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings, including the joinder of the State.

Environmental LawSEQRA ComplianceToll CollectionVerrazano Narrows BridgePreliminary Injunction DenialFederal MandateJudicial DiscretionNecessary Party JoinderPublic AuthoritiesAppellate Affirmation
References
37
Case No. 04-22-00450-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. v. Plains Marketing, L.P., Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Plains Pipeline, L.P.

This appellate case reviews a trial court's order imposing monetary sanctions against Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. (Appellants) in favor of Plains Marketing, L.P.; Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.; and Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Appellees). The sanctions, totaling $482,895.92, were levied under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for alleged groundless pleadings, false testimony, and discovery abuses. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion, concluding that many findings lacked evidentiary support, were conclusory, or addressed matters not properly raised in the sanctions motion. The court further determined that Appellees failed to overcome the presumption of good faith regarding Appellants' filings. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's sanctions order, rendering judgment that Appellees take nothing on their motion.

SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure Rule 13Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10Groundless ClaimsBad FaithDiscovery AbuseSummary JudgmentDue Process
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Decker v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including the United Transportation Union and Local 377, initiated an action in state court against CSX Transport, Inc. (CSXT), alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act's status quo provisions related to CSXT's planned sale of a rail line. CSXT moved for dismissal, contending that the plaintiffs' notice was barred by a national agreement moratorium, Local 377 lacked standing, the carrier held a unilateral right to sell lines, and the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) preempted RLA Section 6. Conversely, plaintiffs asserted that the National Mediation Board had docketed their dispute as major, the sale was a tactic to circumvent RLA provisions, and the moratorium did not apply to them due to local bargaining representation. The court, drawing parallels with Railway Labor Executives’ Association v. Staten Island Railroad Corp., determined that the ICC's authorization of the sale brought the matter under its exclusive jurisdiction. Consequently, the court found itself unable to provide a remedy without interfering with the ICC's order and granted CSXT's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Railway Labor ActStatus Quo ProvisionsMotion to DismissRail Line SaleInterstate Commerce CommissionPreemptionCollective BargainingLabor DisputeInjunctive ReliefJurisdiction
References
10
Case No. W2008-00344-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2008

Georgia-Pacific LLC v. Swift Transportation Corporation

This appeal concerns the interpretation of indemnity and insurance provisions within a contract between Georgia-Pacific (G-P) and Swift Transportation Corporation. The agreement outlined Swift Transportation's role in providing vehicles and drivers for G-P, with specific clauses addressing risks, indemnification, and insurance requirements. A dispute arose after a Swift Transportation driver was allegedly injured at a G-P facility due to G-P's negligence, leading to a lawsuit against G-P. G-P sought defense and indemnification from Swift Transportation, but Swift Transportation declined, asserting that the claim was based on G-P's own negligence, which was not covered under their agreement. The trial court sided with Swift Transportation, ruling that it had no duty to indemnify or insure G-P for claims stemming from G-P's own negligence. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this decision, concluding that the contract did not explicitly require Swift Transportation to indemnify G-P for G-P's own negligent actions, nor did the additional insured provision create such an independent obligation.

Contract interpretationIndemnity clauseInsurance provisionsNegligence liabilityGeorgia lawTennessee Court of AppealsSummary judgmentAdditional insuredSelf-insuranceContractual obligation
References
12
Case No. 11-08-00215-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2008

in Re Golden Peanut Company, LLC

Golden Peanut Company, LLC, did not subscribe to workers' compensation insurance but instead offered an Employee Injury Benefit Plan and a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate. After employee Grant Drennan was killed, his widow, Mindi Drennan, and parents, Louie and Joyce Drennan, filed suit against Golden Peanut rather than claim the plan's death benefit. Golden Peanut moved to abate and compel arbitration, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Golden Peanut argued the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the arbitration agreement was not void and supported by consideration, but ultimately did not bind the Drennans as derivative claimants, and while Mindi Drennan was a third-party beneficiary, conflicting clauses in the agreement precluded a clear determination.

MandamusArbitration AgreementWorkers CompensationEmployee Injury Benefit PlanFederal Arbitration ActTexas Labor CodeDirect Benefit EstoppelDerivative ClaimsThird-Party BeneficiaryEmployment Law
References
39
Case No. E2019-00712-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2020

Joanna L. Golden v. Cynthia D. Powers

This appeal addresses a personal injury case where Joanna L. Golden, a pedestrian, was struck by a car driven by Cynthia D. Powers. The Circuit Court jury found Golden 80% at fault and Powers 20%, awarding Golden $300,000. Plaintiffs Joanna L. Golden and Douglas K. Rice appealed, alleging the Trial Court failed to act as a thirteenth juror and that the jury's fault allocation was unsupported and prejudiced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding the Trial Court properly fulfilled its role as thirteenth juror and that material evidence supported the jury's findings, while dismissing claims of jury prejudice as speculative. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.

Personal InjuryNegligenceComparative FaultJury VerdictAppellate ReviewThirteenth JurorMaterial EvidenceDamagesJury PrejudiceCurative Instructions
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Golden Peanut Co., LLC

Grant Drennan, an employee of Golden Peanut Company, LLC (a nonsubscriber to workers’ compensation), died in the course of employment. He was party to an employee benefit plan containing an arbitration agreement for personal injury or wrongful death claims. His widow and parents, Mindi Drennan et al. (collectively 'the Drennans'), filed a wrongful death suit. Golden Peanut's motion to compel arbitration was denied by the trial court. The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted Golden Peanut's petition for writ of mandamus, holding that wrongful death beneficiaries are bound by the decedent's arbitration agreement as derivative claimants, citing In re Labatt Food Service, L.P. The Court also determined that Texas Labor Code section 406.033(e), which prohibits pre-injury waivers, does not invalidate arbitration agreements as they are forum-selection clauses, not waivers of substantive rights.

Arbitration AgreementWrongful Death ClaimsEmployee Benefit PlanERISAFederal Arbitration ActMandamus ReliefNonsubscriber EmployerDerivative ClaimsTexas Labor CodeForum Selection
References
5
Case No. 2019-06-1297
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2022

Earheart, Jr., John v. Central Transport, Inc.

John Earheart, Jr., a delivery driver, filed a claim against his employer, Central Transport, Inc., and its carrier, Cherokee Insurance Co., for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a hip injury in 2016. The primary dispute at the compensation hearing was Mr. Earheart's entitlement to attorney's fees and costs due to Central Transport's alleged wrongful failure to timely pay temporary disability benefits. Central Transport argued it was not responsible for fees as it eventually agreed to pay benefits, but Mr. Earheart countered that the agreement only came after significant effort from his lawyer. The Court sided with Mr. Earheart, finding Central Transport erroneously relied on an unauthorized physician for an MMI determination and wrongfully terminated him, leading to the untimely payment of benefits. Consequently, the Court awarded Mr. Earheart $50,505.50 in attorney's fees and costs, in addition to medical treatment and agreed-upon permanent partial disability benefits.

Attorney's Fees AwardTemporary Disability Benefits DisputeMaximum Medical Improvement DeterminationEmployer's Physician OpinionAuthorized Treating PhysicianWrongful TerminationRetaliatory Discharge ClaimDelayed Benefit PaymentsJudicial Finding of Erroneous Employer ActionPermanent Partial Disability Benefits
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,514 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