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

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smallwood v. Mereda Realty Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the employment relationship of a building superintendent, the claimant, who sustained injuries. The Board determined that the claimant was both a general employee of Pueblo Nuevo Associates, the building owner, and a special employee of Mereda Realty Corporation, the managing company, holding both entities 50% liable for the claim. The claimant appealed this determination, specifically contesting the employment relationship with Pueblo Nuevo Associates. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of a general employment relationship with Pueblo Nuevo Associates, even though other evidence could have supported a different conclusion.

Employment RelationshipGeneral EmployeeSpecial EmployeeDual EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionBuilding SuperintendentRent-free Apartment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Casualty Co. v. Texas Attorney General

This case involves an appeal by Employers Casualty Company (Employers) against a trial court's order mandating the withholding of Michael Toliver's workers' compensation benefits to satisfy his child support obligations. Employers argued that the applicable law at the time of Toliver's injury in 1990, Texas Revised Civil Statutes article 8306, § 3(b), exempted such benefits from garnishment or withholding. The Texas Attorney General countered, arguing for the application of a newer statute, article 8308-4.08(b), or that legislative intent supported the withholding. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the law in effect at the time of injury governs the case, and therefore, Employers is not required to withhold the benefits. However, the court clarified that the benefits are still available for child support directly from Michael Toliver after he receives them.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsChild Support EnforcementWithholding OrderStatutory InterpretationRetroactivity of LawExemption from GarnishmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance LawDate of Injury Rule
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 1995

Claim of Shoemaker v. Manpower, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the employment status of a claimant who was injured while working at Westwood Pharmaceuticals. The claimant was generally employed by Manpower, Inc., a temporary employee supplier. Westwood contended that it was the claimant's special employer, limiting her remedy to workers' compensation. The Board initially found that Westwood's control was insufficient to establish a special employment relationship, ruling Manpower as the sole employer. Both Westwood and Manpower appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's findings, concluding that the evidence demonstrated Westwood exercised exclusive control and supervision over the claimant's activities, thereby establishing a special employment relationship. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this Court's decision.

Special EmploymentTemporary EmployeeWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityControl TestDual EmploymentAppellate ReviewRemittalSubstantial EvidencePersonal Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. 110 Sand Co.

The case involves an injured truck driver, originally employed by Horan Sand & Gravel, who was assigned to work at 110 Sand Company's site. After sustaining injuries on the job, he accepted workers' compensation benefits from Horan. Subsequently, he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against 110 Sand. 110 Sand moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was its 'special employee' and thus, the acceptance of workers' compensation benefits from Horan barred the lawsuit against them. The Supreme Court granted this motion, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the evidence supported the finding of a special employment relationship, and under Workers' Compensation Law, an injured worker who accepts benefits from their general employer is precluded from suing their special employer for the same injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNew York LawEmployer LiabilityDerived Claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McLeod v. Ground Handling, Inc.

This case addresses whether an accident occurring on a public street, away from the immediate place of employment but near the workplace, arose out of and in the course of employment. The court examined the 'gray area' where risks of street travel merge with employment risks, emphasizing the need for a special hazard at the accident point and a close association of the access route with the premises. The Board found no special hazard on the county road, which was used by the general public and not controlled by the employer. Consequently, the accident was deemed a risk shared by the general public, not related to the claimant's employment. The decision affirming the Board's finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was upheld.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentOff-premises AccidentSpecial Hazard RuleStreet RiskGoing and Coming RulePublic RoadAccess RouteEmployer ControlAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. 03-04-00295-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2005

James P. Halfmann v. Employers General Insurance Company

James P. Halfmann appealed from a district court's summary judgment that denied his worker's compensation benefits against Employers General Insurance Company (later clarified as Old Republic Insurance Company). Halfmann raised three issues on appeal: the court erred in granting a no-evidence summary judgment regarding the compensability of his cervical injury, granting traditional summary judgment based on naming the wrong defendant, and failing to grant his motion for a new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding that Halfmann failed to timely respond to the no-evidence motion for summary judgment and did not demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the denial of his motion for a new trial.

Worker's CompensationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantAbuse of DiscretionNew Trial MotionAppellate ProcedureCervical InjuryTexas LawInsurance DisputeNo-Evidence Motion
References
12
Case No. 03-99-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2000

Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Jack M. Webb, as Special Deputy Receiver of Employers Casualty Co. Jack M. Webb, as Special Deputy Receiver of Employers National Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment concerning the claims priority scheme within the Texas Insurance Code's liquidation statute. The appellant, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), challenged the classification of its claims for defense costs incurred in defending liability and workers' compensation claims under policies of insolvent insurers. TPCIGA argued these costs should receive Class 1 priority as claims-handling expenses, while appellees contended they were Class 2 payments of policyholder claims. The court concluded that, prior to a 1995 amendment to the statute, such defense costs were properly classified as Class 2 claims. Therefore, the district court's judgment classifying them as Class 2 was affirmed.

Insurance LawClaims PriorityLiquidation StatuteTexas Insurance CodeGuaranty ActPolicyholder ClaimsDefense CostsStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentReceivership
References
22
Case No. 03-97-00567-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 1998

Memorial Medical Center of East Texas v. James A. Howard, Special Deputy Receiver of Texas Employers' Insurance Association and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association

Memorial Medical Center of East Texas appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of James A. Howard, Special Deputy Receiver of Texas Employers' Insurance Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association. Memorial sought a declaration that the appellees were obligated to reimburse defense costs incurred in a separate suit brought by its employees. The trial court granted the appellees' motions for summary judgment without specifying the grounds. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that both the Receiver and the Association were statutorily precluded from defending Memorial or reimbursing its defense costs under relevant provisions of the Texas Insurance Code.

Summary judgmentInsurance CodeDuty to defendReimbursementImpaired insurerReceivershipGuaranty AssociationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationWorkers' compensation insurance
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the employment status of a decedent. The decedent, a staff physician at Bellevue Hospital, was murdered. Her husband, the claimant, filed a wrongful death action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC), which operated Bellevue. NYCHHC argued it was the decedent's special employer, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that New York University Medical Center (NYU) was the decedent's sole employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, citing substantial evidence that NYU provided all professional services at Bellevue, employed and supervised the physicians, and controlled the details of their work, even though NYCHHC had general hospital oversight. The court reiterated that when evidence supports both general and special employment, the ultimate determination is a question of fact for the Board, and its decision stands if supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployer LiabilityWrongful Death ActionPhysician EmploymentHospital Affiliation AgreementSubstantial EvidenceQuestion of FactJudicial Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 18,220 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