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. 2016-02-0380
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

LaGuardia, Kathleen Delores v. Total Holdings USA, Inc. d/b/a Hutchinson Sealing Systems

The employee alleged an injury from a slip and fall at work. The trial court initially denied benefits and later granted summary judgment for the employer, finding insufficient evidence that the injury primarily arose out of employment. The employee appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment. The Appeals Board reviewed the record, noting circumstantial evidence from the employee regarding "oily dust" around her workstation after the fall. The Board concluded that this evidence raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether an employment hazard caused the fall. Consequently, the Board reversed the order granting summary judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Slip and FallSummary JudgmentCircumstantial EvidenceArising Out of EmploymentScope of EmploymentMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewRemandOccupational HazardEmployee Testimony
References
11
Case No. 2021-08-0937
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2024

Soto, Victor v. Patterson, Jr., d/b/a Patterson Construction

This is the second interlocutory appeal in a case where claimant Victor Soto asserts he sustained significant head injuries while working for Denny Patterson, Jr., d/b/a Patterson Construction. The employer denied the claim, contending Soto was an independent contractor. The trial court initially denied benefits but later denied the employer's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Soto's employment status. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that while the employer met its initial burden of production for summary judgment, the record revealed multiple genuine issues of material fact regarding the claimant's employment status that preclude summary judgment. The case has been remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationIndependent Contractor StatusSummary JudgmentBurden of ProofGenuine Issues of Material FactEmployment StatusAppeals BoardRemandInterlocutory AppealRule 56
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Choice v. Gibbs

William Choice, a contractor, filed a negligence lawsuit against homeowners Richard A. Gibbs and Mary C. Edwards, alleging he was electrocuted and suffered a heart attack while working at their residence. The homeowners sought a no-evidence summary judgment, contending a lack of proof for causation. The trial court granted their motion, but on appeal, the court reversed and remanded the case. The appellate court determined that Choice had presented sufficient evidence, including his own testimony of immediate symptoms and an expert's affidavit, to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the electrocution caused his heart attack, referencing the Kneten precedent. Furthermore, the court found a genuine issue of material fact concerning the foreseeability of the alleged negligence causing Choice's injuries.

NegligencePremises LiabilityElectrocutionHeart AttackCausationSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyMedical ProbabilityAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
20
Case No. 10-00-403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2002

Noah Kenneth Dodd v. Beverly Hills, City Of

Noah Kenneth Dodd sued his former employer, the City of Beverly Hills, alleging wrongful termination. The City moved for and was granted summary judgment by the trial court. Dodd appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding his termination and the Mayor's authority to fire him. The appeals court found that the summary judgment motion complied with Rule 166a(i) but determined that Dodd's employment status remained at-will, making the reason for termination irrelevant. However, the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding Mayor Gibbs' authority to terminate Dodd, as the General Personnel Manual indicated the city council as the appointing authority. Therefore, the summary judgment was reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

Wrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentAt-Will EmploymentNepotism PolicyMayoral AuthorityDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawLocal Government CodeGenuine Issues of Material Fact
References
11
Case No. 14-17-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Robert Stevenson v. Waste Management of Texas, Inc. and Rigoberto Zelaya

In this personal-injury case, a worker, Robert Stevenson, hired by a temporary-employment supplier suffered serious injuries while performing tasks for Waste Management of Texas, Inc. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Stevenson’s negligence claim, citing the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision, asserting Stevenson was an employee of Waste Management. Stevenson appealed, arguing a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding his employment status. The appellate court found that the summary-judgment evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Stevenson was Waste Management’s “employee” under the statute. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Employment LawSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorNegligencePersonal InjuryTemporary EmploymentRight to ControlAppellate ReviewTexas LawMaster Agreement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Byrd v. Hall

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed the appropriate standard for evaluating summary judgment motions under Rule 56 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure. The case involved Jan Byrd's appeal from a summary judgment granted to Dr. Thomas Hall, Dr. Maxwell Huff, and Dr. David Coffey in a tortious interference with employment claim. The court aimed to establish a clearer summary judgment jurisprudence. After reviewing both state and federal precedents, the court outlined a three-part test focusing on factual disputes, materiality, and genuineness of issues for trial. Ultimately, the court reversed the lower courts' grant of summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff's affidavit presented sufficient specific facts to create genuine issues of material fact that required a trial.

Summary JudgmentTennessee Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Tortious Interference with EmploymentGenuine Issue of Material FactBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewDirected Verdict StandardFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Judicial PrecedentCivil Procedure
References
44
Case No. 09-01-472 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2002

Clay Fletcher v. Sawyer Crystal Systems, Inc.

The case involves Clay Fletcher suing Sawyer Crystal Systems, Inc. for injuries sustained while working on their premises. Fletcher, an employee of Express Personal Services, claimed he was an invitee of Sawyer. Sawyer moved for summary judgment, arguing Fletcher was a "borrowed servant" and his exclusive remedy was workers' compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Sawyer. Fletcher appealed, arguing genuine issues of material fact precluded a determination as a matter of law that he was the borrowed servant of Sawyer. The Court of Appeals found Fletcher's affidavit raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning the specific direction and control by either the loaning employer (Express) or the borrowing employer (Sawyer). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Borrowed servant doctrinesummary judgmentworkers' compensationright of controlemployer-employee relationshippremises liabilitygenuine issue of material factTexas Court of Appealstort lawvicarious liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurth v. Gonzales

Michael D. Kurth, an employee of the United States Bureau of Prisons (BOP), alleges disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act due to job-related severe emotional stress and depression. Defendant, BOP, moved for summary judgment on Kurth's claims of discriminatory discharge, harassment/hostile work environment, and reprisal/retaliation. The court found that Kurth failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding a 'sole cause' for discriminatory discharge based on disability and for hostile work environment. However, Kurth successfully raised a genuine issue of material fact for his retaliation claim, citing protected activity and a causal connection to his termination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the discriminatory discharge and hostile work environment claims but denied it for the retaliation claim.

Rehabilitation ActSummary JudgmentDiscriminatory DischargeHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationDisability DiscriminationMajor Life ActivityBurden ShiftingPrima Facie CaseFederal Employment
References
41
Case No. 13-99-394-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2000

Welch, Kelly J. and Allison Welch v. Reynolds Metals Company and Arlon Boatman

Kelly J. Welch, an employee of Reynolds Metals Company, sued Reynolds and supervisor Arlon Boatman, alleging intentional asbestos-related injury resulting in asbestosis. Welch claimed Reynolds was aware of the substantial certainty of harm but disregarded safety. The trial court granted Reynolds' no-evidence motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court examined whether the trial court implicitly struck the affidavit of Dr. Richard Cohen, an expert witness for Welch, and whether sufficient evidence existed to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Reynolds' intent. The appellate court found no implicit ruling on the motion to strike Cohen's affidavit and concluded that Cohen's testimony, along with other evidence, provided more than a scintilla of evidence to question Reynolds' intent, thus creating a genuine issue of material fact for trial. The judgment was reversed and remanded.

AsbestosisIntentional InjurySummary Judgment AppealExpert Witness TestimonyAffidavit AdmissibilityEmployer IntentOccupational DiseaseTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewFact Question
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunn v. Stephens

Alice Faye Dunn, surviving widow and heirs of Earnest Nebraska Dunn, appealed a summary judgment that favored defendants R. M. Stephens, Robert J. Sabinske, and National Development Company. The plaintiffs sought exemplary damages after Earnest Dunn was fatally run over by a winch truck driven by Stephens, an employee of Sabinske. The core of the appeal was whether genuine issues of material fact regarding gross negligence and proximate cause existed, challenging the trial court's summary judgment. The appellate court found that new evidence, an affidavit by witness Lloyd Dyess, introduced during the summary judgment hearing created conflicts of evidence sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding gross negligence and conscious indifference. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the distinct burdens of proof in venue versus summary judgment hearings.

Gross negligenceExemplary damagesSummary judgmentProximate causeFact issuesVenueAffidavit evidenceConflicting testimonyWrongful deathRemand
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 14,271 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