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. ADJ8608456 MF\nADJ8608504\nADJ8523009\nADJ8551858\nADJ8609068
Regular
Oct 07, 2015

HORACIO CABRERA, Deceased MARIBEL BARAJAS, Widow, Guardian Ad\nLitem for LITZY CABRERA, LESLY\nCABRERA, MARIA CABRERA AND\nKASSANDRA CABRERA; BRIANNA\nCABRERA, for herself and Guardian Ad Litem for STEFANI ARIAS, ANTONIO SOLARES, MODESTO DOMINGUEZ, JOHNATHAN ALONSO vs. MV CONTRACTING, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the employer sought reconsideration of a ruling finding a fatal motor vehicle accident and related injuries industrial. The employer argued the administrative law judge erred in admitting evidence and presuming compensability due to a failure to issue timely denial notices. The employer also contended the "going and coming rule" barred the claims as the accident occurred during a standard commute. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the judge's findings that the injuries were industrial and not barred by the going and coming rule, largely adopting the judge's reasoning.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionRulings and Order Admitting EvidenceFindings of FactMotor Vehicle AccidentIndustrial InjuriesFatal Industrial InjuryDependentsNotice of Denial
References
0
Case No. ADJ10761099
Regular
Apr 06, 2020

TANYA WARD vs. SARTI ENTERPRISES, LLC, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant injured by a car while investigating a disturbance on employer property after her shift. The defendant argued the injury was not compensable due to the "going and coming rule," asserting the applicant was not acting within the scope of employment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the injury industrial. The Board reasoned that the applicant's investigation conferred a direct benefit to the employer, fitting the "dual purpose" exception to the going and coming rule.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryFront Desk ManagerRight ShoulderRight ElbowUpper ExtremitiesGoing and Coming RuleDual Purpose ExceptionIndustrial CausationEmployer Benefit
References
10
Case No. ADJ17834281
Regular
Nov 10, 2025

JOSE MARTINEZ vs. CUSTOM PIPE COUPLING, FEDERAL INSURANCE CO.

Applicant Jose Martinez sought reconsideration of a finding that his injury did not arise out of and occur in the course of employment, as it fell under the "going and coming" rule. The WCJ's initial finding was based on a May 26, 2023 motor vehicle accident occurring while Martinez was driving a company truck home for personal use, specifically to transport scrap metal given to him by his employer. The Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied reconsideration, concluding that none of the exceptions to the "going and coming" rule applied, as there was no benefit to the employer for Martinez to take the company truck home once the delivery task was removed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Errand ExceptionAOE/COEMotor Vehicle AccidentCompany Vehicle
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris County v. Going

Ronald F. Going, a former patrolman and sergeant for Harris County, sued the county after being demoted and subsequently terminated. Going alleged that his demotion and termination violated his free speech rights under the Texas Constitution. A jury found in favor of Going, awarding him damages and recommending reinstatement. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that Harris County could not be held liable for the unconstitutional acts of its employees under a theory of respondeat superior. The court also held that even under a Monell standard, no constitutional violation attributable to Harris County occurred as the jury found the direct supervisor did not violate Going's rights. Additionally, the court rejected Going's cross-points regarding remand for front pay, claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and whistleblower statute claims due to governmental immunity and failure to meet the statute of limitations.

Governmental immunityFree speechTexas Constitution42 U.S.C. § 1983Whistleblower ActPublic employee rightsWrongful demotionWrongful terminationOfficial policyRespondeat superior
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. National Convenience Stores, Inc.

Justice DUNCAN dissents, arguing that the Exxon "right to control safety" test is inapplicable because Stop N Go, the defendant, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NCS, Brooks' employer. He contends that a judgment against Stop N Go would indirectly negate the exclusive remedy bar provided by the Workers' Compensation Act for NCS. Furthermore, DUNCAN asserts that Rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure should not mandate a remand when a dispositive and incontrovertible fact, such as the subsidiary relationship, has been conclusively established by the summary judgment proof, as a remand would serve no practical purpose and only incur additional costs and delay.

Workers' Compensation ActWholly-owned subsidiaryCorporate veilExclusive remedy barSummary judgmentAppellate procedureRight to controlAgency relationshipTexas lawDissenting opinion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephens ex rel. Stephens v. Maxima Corp.

Kathy Stephens, an employee of Maxima Corporation, died in a fatal automobile accident while driving home during her lunch break to retrieve a company questionnaire (P.D.Q.) form. The trial court denied workers' compensation benefits to her minor child, concluding that her death did not occur in the course of her employment. The appeal examined whether the 'special errand rule' exception to the 'going and coming rule' applied, arguing she was on a special assignment at her supervisor's request. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial, finding that the employer did not instruct or require Stephens to go home for the form, making her action a personal decision and thus not within the scope of her employment or the special errand exception.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand RuleGoing and Coming RuleCourse of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentLunch Break InjuryEmployer InstructionEmployee DecisionAppellate ReviewBenefits Denial
References
8
Case No. ADJ6655702
Regular
Mar 18, 2010

GERICK CATUGDA vs. WINKLEBLACK CONSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE COMPANY c/o APPLIED RISK SERVICES

This case concerns whether the "going and coming rule" bars applicant's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained during his commute. The defendant argued the rule applied, but the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied their petition for reconsideration. The Board adopted the WCJ's finding that the applicant's employment required him to have transportation for multiple job sites, creating an exception to the rule. This decision aligns with established precedent, where transportation necessity for the employer's benefit removes the commute from the rule's exclusion.

Going and coming ruleindustrial injuryconstruction laborerhead injurybrain injurypsyche injuryspine injuryribs injurypelvis injuryarms injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court re-examined its long-standing rule from Woods v. Warren regarding workers' compensation liability for employees injured while traveling to or from work. The case involved a Wal-Mart employee who slipped on ice in the company-designated parking lot after her shift. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the "special hazard" requirement. Acknowledging the inconsistencies and unworkability of the prior rule under the material evidence standard, the Court adopted a new, clearer standard for accidents occurring on or after July 1, 1985. The new rule states that an employee on the employer's premises, including employer-provided parking, while coming or going from work is acting in the course of employment, regardless of public access to the parking area. The Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this revised premises rule.

Premises LiabilityGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Hazard DoctrineRequired Route ExceptionSummary Judgment ReversalTennessee Supreme CourtJudicial Standard of ReviewDe Novo Review AdoptionEmployee Parking AreaSlip and Fall Injury
References
36
Case No. SAC 357129
Regular
Sep 24, 2007

MICHAEL HANCOCK vs. TOWNSEND & SCHMIDT MASONRY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant injured in a car accident while commuting to work, with the employer arguing the "going and coming" rule barred recovery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a finding that the applicant's injuries were industrial, holding that the rule did not apply. The Board reasoned that the applicant's use of his personal vehicle to transport tools, the potential for inter-job site travel, and the employer's travel pay policy conferred a benefit to the employer, thus justifying an exception to the rule.

going and coming ruleindustrial injuryautomobile accidentcommutebrick tendercourse of employmentWCJpetition for reconsiderationemployer benefitwork materials
References
1
Case No. ADJ10492342
Regular
Apr 27, 2023

JASMINE ORBERG vs. INTER SOURCES, INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior decision, finding applicant Jasmine Orberg was an employee of Inter Sources, Inc. at the time of her injury. The WCAB determined that Orberg's activities in the training program, including interacting with customers and providing status updates, established an employer-employee relationship under the Borello standard. Furthermore, the WCAB ruled that the "going and coming" rule did not bar her claim because the employer provided transportation, which falls under an exception to the rule. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardInternshipMotor Vehicle AccidentGoing and Coming RuleEmployer-employee relationshipBorello standardIndependent contractorPrima facie caseAgencyProvided transportation
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 10,632 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