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

Ely v. General Motors Corp.

Robin Ely, individually and as representative of the estate of Paul J. Ely, brought a wrongful death suit against Darrell Durham, Dow Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc. (Dow), and General Motors after Paul Ely was killed by a vehicle driven by Durham, a Dow mechanic. The trial court granted summary judgment for General Motors, which Ely appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that General Motors was not vicariously liable for Durham's actions, as no agency relationship or joint enterprise was established due to a lack of control over the specific injury-causing act. Additionally, the court found no independent negligence on the part of General Motors, concluding there was no legal duty to ensure Dow's capitalization or implement a drug policy for Dow's employees, and that any alleged negligence in these areas was too remotely connected to Paul Ely's death. The claim of negligent marketing of a high-speed vehicle was also rejected due to the absence of a fiduciary duty.

Wrongful DeathVicarious LiabilityAgency RelationshipJoint EnterpriseSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimProximate CauseFranchisor-FranchiseeAutomotive IndustryProduct Liability
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2000

Rosenberg v. Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc.

Robert Rosenberg, an employee of an alarm company, was allegedly injured after tripping over cardboard at a construction site. He and his wife sued Ben Krupinski General Contractors, Inc. (the general contractor) and Dave Mims Fifth Generation Painting Contractors (a subcontractor) under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Mims but denied Krupinski's motion for similar relief. On appeal, the order was modified; Krupinski's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 claim was granted, as Krupinski established it had no authority to control the activity causing the injury. However, the motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was properly denied due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the accident occurred in a passageway or work area and whether specific regulations (12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1) or (2)) were violated, and whether Krupinski was still the general contractor at the time of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentGeneral Contractor LiabilitySummary JudgmentSafe Place to WorkAppellate DivisionTriable Issue of FactLabor Law CompliancePremises LiabilitySubcontractor
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saldana v. Houston General Insurance Co.

Daniel Saldana, Jr., sustained a knee injury in March 1976 while working for Houston Poultry and Egg Company, requiring surgery. After a subsequent fall in October 1976, he reported back pain, which he contended was an extension of his initial injury. He sued Houston General Insurance Company, the worker's compensation carrier, for a general injury. The jury, however, found the injury was specific to his right leg and awarded him $3,775.78 for permanent partial incapacity, with a $40 weekly decrease in earning capacity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting Saldana's eight points of error regarding the judgment's conformity to the verdict, sufficiency of evidence, and admission of evidence.

Worker's CompensationSpecific InjuryGeneral Injury ClaimKnee InjuryBack Injury DisputeJury Verdict AppealMedical Expert TestimonyPermanent Partial DisabilityWage Earning CapacityEvidence Admissibility
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Dynamics Corp. v. Sharp

General Dynamics Corporation appealed a summary judgment concerning a tax-protest suit against the Texas Comptroller. The core issues were the constitutionality of the earned surplus portion of the amended Texas franchise tax, specifically its retroactivity, and the validity of Texas’ single-factor method for apportioning the franchise tax base. General Dynamics argued the tax amendment was a new corporate income tax that retroactively impaired vested rights and that the single-factor apportionment led to an unconstitutionally high tax burden. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the franchise tax amendment operated prospectively and did not impair vested rights, and that the disparity caused by the single-factor apportionment method was insufficient to render it unconstitutional under the Commerce and Due Process Clauses.

Texas franchise taxtax protestretroactive lawearned surplusapportionment formulasingle-factor apportionmentmulti-state corporationCommerce ClauseDue Process ClauseDue Course of Law
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Hare v. General Marine Transport Corp.

In this opinion, the District Court denied General Marine Transport Corporation's motion to amend a prior judgment that awarded damages to the Trustees of the New York Marine Towing and Transportation Industry Pension Fund and Insurance Fund. General Marine sought to amend the judgment based on the recent Supreme Court ruling in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, arguing for the application of a six-month limitations period. The court determined that DelCostello specifically applies to "hybrid 301/fair representation" claims and does not necessitate a departure from the previously applied six-year New York state statute of limitations for breach of contract actions, citing Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp. Therefore, the motion was denied, reaffirming the earlier decision.

Motion to Amend JudgmentStatute of LimitationsLabor LawBreach of ContractFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations ActHybrid 301/Fair Representation ClaimsPension FundInsurance Fund
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Electric Co. v. Kunze

Appellee Curtis T. Kunze was awarded damages by a jury after being discharged from his employment with General Electric Company and General Electric Supply Company in violation of Texas Worker’s Compensation Statutes, article 8307c. The damages included lost past and future wages and benefits, and exemplary damages for willful and malicious termination. General Electric appealed, contending that Kunze was fired for poor performance, not for filing a worker's compensation claim, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for damages and the recoverability of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding ample evidence to support the jury's findings of wrongful termination and the awarded damages. It also clarified that future lost wages are recoverable under the statute and that prejudgment interest was already factored into the damage awards.

Worker's CompensationWrongful TerminationRetaliatory DischargeExemplary DamagesLost WagesLost BenefitsFuture DamagesPrejudgment InterestEvidence AdmissibilityExpert Witness
References
9
Case No. 2018-07-0087
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2018

Cotner, Jamie v. Dollar General Corp.

Mr. Jamie Cotner, an employee of Dollar General Corp., sustained a right knee injury on July 28, 2017, while at work. He subsequently sought an expedited hearing for additional medical benefits, specifically knee replacement surgery. The core legal issue revolved around whether his need for surgery primarily arose out of his work injury, considering a pre-existing arthritic condition. The Court considered conflicting medical opinions from Dr. David Johnson, an orthopedic surgeon, and Dr. Samuel Chung, a physiatrist, regarding causation. The Court denied Mr. Cotner's request for knee replacement surgery, finding insufficient evidence that the work injury contributed more than fifty percent to the need for surgery. However, Dollar General was ordered to continue providing medical treatment for the causally-related knee sprain/strain.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingCausationPre-existing ConditionArthritisMeniscus TearMedical Expert TestimonyIndependent Medical Evaluation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowman v. Charter General Agency, Inc.

Appellant Dinah Bowman sued multiple appellees, including Charter General Agency, Inc., for claims including negligent and intentional infliction of mental anguish, gross negligence, and fraud, stemming from an automobile accident and the subsequent handling of her insurance claim. The claims against Charter General alleged violations of various Texas Administrative and Insurance Codes, as well as duties of due care and good faith. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Charter General. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that while a general release did not specifically absolve Charter General from liability, the crucial finding was that Charter General, as the opposing party's insurer, did not owe a duty of good faith and fair dealing to Bowman as a third-party claimant, outside of specific exceptions not applicable here. Consequently, all of Bowman's claims dependent on this alleged duty failed, upholding the trial court's decision.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceIntentional Infliction of Mental AnguishGross NegligenceFraudInsurance LawDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingThird-Party ClaimRelease of LiabilityAgency Law
References
17
Case No. 23-0679
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2025

Fort Bend Independent School District v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas

This case addresses the balance between public access to government information and the privacy rights of government employees, specifically concerning information stored on their private cell phones used for official business. Fort Bend Independent School District sought a ruling on the disclosure of phone records under the Texas Public Information Act, arguing for privacy protections. The Attorney General's office ruled that business-related information is subject to the Act, and the court of appeals affirmed. Justice Young concurred in denying the motion for rehearing, emphasizing that the request and ruling already account for redaction of personal and confidential information, thus mitigating immediate privacy threats in this specific instance. The opinion also questions the practice of requiring employees to use personal devices for official business without providing adequate equipment.

Public Information ActGovernment TransparencyEmployee PrivacyCell Phone RecordsFourth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionMotion for RehearingConcurring OpinionGovernment EmployeesPersonal Devices
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Attorney General of the State v. Johnson

The Attorney General appealed a judgment awarding Johnson attorney's fees and court costs after a trial court found the Attorney General's fraud claim against Johnson, regarding worker's compensation benefits, to be frivolous. The Attorney General argued that article 8307, section 9a exempted his agency from liability under Chapter 105, that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, and that Johnson's motion for fees did not comply with section 105.003. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Chapter 105 is applicable to the Attorney General, that the claim lacked arguable basis as Johnson's form did not inquire about other employment and continuous work during benefits was not wrongful, and that Johnson's motion was timely and procedurally compliant.

Attorney's FeesFrivolous ClaimsWorker's Compensation FraudAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationFraudulent ConcealmentTrial Court Judgment AffirmedLitigation ExpensesState Agency Liability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 8,483 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