Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 05-14-01042-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 25, 2016

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case examines whether an injured worker's claim falls under the exclusive remedy of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act or a common-law negligence claim. Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI) appealed a trial court's judgment awarding damages to Alessandro Udell, an injured worker assigned to TI by Volt Services Group. The appellate court found that Udell was an employee of TI for workers' compensation purposes, or at least a statutory/deemed employee, and that TI maintained workers' compensation insurance. Consequently, the Texas Workers' Compensation Act served as the exclusive remedy, barring Udell's negligence claim. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of TI.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyStatutory EmployerIndependent ContractorNegligence ClaimEmployment StatusRight to ControlTexas LawReversed JudgmentDirected Verdict

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case addresses an insurance coverage dispute between Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District (Ben Bolt) and the Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund (the Fund). Ben Bolt sued the Fund after a claim for extensive water and mold damage was denied, leading the Fund to assert governmental immunity. The Supreme Court of Texas determined that the Fund is a distinct governmental unit, thereby entitled to governmental immunity. However, the Court concluded that Section 271.152 of the Local Government Code provides a clear and unambiguous statutory waiver of the Fund’s immunity from suit for breach of contract claims in this context. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Governmental ImmunityInsurance CoverageSelf-Insurance FundPolitical SubdivisionsInterlocal Cooperation ActBreach of ContractStatutory WaiverTrial Court JurisdictionDe Novo ReviewTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 08, 2006

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

The Texas Association of School Boards Risk Management Fund appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning claims brought by the Benavides Independent School District. The School District had sued for breach of contract, torts (DTPA, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, fiduciary duties, negligence, gross negligence), and a declaratory action. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for contractual claims, citing a waiver of immunity under Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, as supported by Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco. However, the court reversed the trial court's order regarding the tort claims, ruling that governmental immunity from suit had not been waived for these claims, thereby dismissing them for lack of jurisdiction. The court also held that governmental immunity exists between political subdivisions unless expressly waived.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionContract ClaimsTort ClaimsInterlocal Cooperation ActLocal Government CodeWaiver of ImmunityPolitical SubdivisionsSchool District

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, stemming from his failure to report workers' compensation benefits while receiving social services benefits. The appellate court first addressed the defendant's Batson challenge regarding a peremptorily excused black juror, affirming the lower court's finding that the prosecutor's explanation was race-neutral. Next, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the grand larceny conviction, noting that the defendant's misrepresentations were material and resulted in an overpayment exceeding $3,000. Additionally, the court rejected claims of abridged confrontation rights, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the judgment was modified to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences for the grand larceny and false instrument for filing convictions, and as modified, affirmed.

Grand LarcenyFalse Instrument for FilingSocial Services Benefits FraudWorkers' Compensation OverpaymentBatson ChallengeJuror Peremptory ChallengeSufficiency of EvidenceConfrontation Clause RightsProsecutorial MisconductIneffective Assistance of Counsel

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The plaintiff sought workers’ compensation benefits from the defendant hospital authority for an alleged employment-related injury. The trial court rejected the claim, citing two grounds: the employer's exemption from Workers' Compensation Laws and the expiration of the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court of Tennessee focused on the exemption issue, concluding that the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority, as a governmental hospital authority and a subdivision of the state and county, is exempt from the Workers’ Compensation Act under T.C.A. § 50-6-106(5). The court found that the authority's charter legislation clearly indicates its status as a public instrumentality performing a governmental function. Consequently, the trial court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint was affirmed, as the authority had not elected to operate under the workers’ compensation laws.

Workers' Compensation ExemptionGovernmental ImmunityHospital AuthorityStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawPublic InstrumentalitySubdivision of StateEmployer ExemptionAppellate DecisionAffirmed Decision

References

Case No. 10-99-190-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 27, 1999

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

William J. Bryant filed a lawsuit against the City of Ennis seeking worker's compensation disability benefits due to a heart attack sustained during his employment as a police officer. A jury found in favor of Bryant, prompting the City of Ennis to appeal the decision. Prior to a ruling on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement and filed an 'Agreed Motion to Dismiss Appeal and Cause'. In response, the Tenth Court of Appeals, citing Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a) and 43.2(e), granted the motion, vacated the trial court's judgment, and dismissed the case, with costs taxed against the party incurring them.

Worker's CompensationDisability BenefitsHeart AttackPolice OfficerAppellate ReviewSettlement AgreementDismissal of AppealVacated JudgmentSelf-Insured EmployerGovernmental Entity

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Letha Black's property experienced increased water flow and damage after the City of Midlothian approved a residential subdivision's drainage detention pond. Black sued Midlothian, alleging a violation of the Texas Water Code and an inverse condemnation claim. Midlothian filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity. The appellate court held that the Legislature had not clearly and unambiguously waived Midlothian's immunity for the Water Code claim. Furthermore, the court found Black failed to sufficiently plead a valid inverse condemnation claim by not alleging that Midlothian knew the damage was substantially certain to occur. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's denial of Midlothian's plea to the jurisdiction and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Black's suit against Midlothian.

Governmental ImmunityInverse CondemnationWater Code ViolationPlea to the JurisdictionWaiver of ImmunitySurface Water DiversionProperty DamageTexas Constitution Article I Section 17Municipal ImmunityStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 21, 1983

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case involves petitioners Geophysical Service, Inc. (GSI) and Texas Instruments, Inc. (TI) seeking exoneration from or limitation of liability following the sinking of their chartered vessel, M/V ARCTIC EXPLORER, in Canadian territorial waters, resulting in 13 deaths. The petitioners also moved to dismiss the consolidated claims based on forum non conveniens. The Court, presided over by District McDonald, first determined that Canadian substantive law, particularly the Canadian Shipping Act, governed the controversy. Applying the factors from Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert and Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, the Court granted the petitioners' motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, finding Canada to be the more appropriate forum due to substantial contacts and interests. The dismissal was conditioned on GSI and TI submitting to Canadian jurisdiction, waiving any statute of limitation defense, and agreeing to satisfy any judgment rendered by a Canadian court.

Maritime LawLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensCanadian LawAdmiralty JurisdictionChoice of LawShipping ActWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryVessel Sinking

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The City of Dallas appealed a trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction against Jill Herz, P.C.'s claim for attorney's fees under the Texas Labor Code. Herz represented Clifford Beamon, a firefighter who received worker's compensation benefits from the City and later secured a third-party settlement. Herz sought attorney's fees from the City's reimbursement amount, but the City asserted governmental immunity. The appellate court reviewed the plea de novo and concluded that the Texas Labor Code, specifically section 417.003, does not contain a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against municipalities acting as self-insurers. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction, and remanded the cause.

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityAttorney's FeesWorker's CompensationTexas Labor CodePlea to the JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealReimbursementSelf-Insured MunicipalityStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The case involves three motions: the employer, American Machine & Foundry Company, seeks to stay arbitration initiated by Amalgamated Machine, Instrument & Metal Local 475 (union local); the union local seeks to compel arbitration; and William S. Abernathy, claiming to be chairman of the shop committee, seeks to intervene in support of the employer. The employer is caught between two factions of the union, each claiming authority over the grievance committee. The court grants Abernathy's motion to intervene, finding it a proper case under the Civil Practice Act. The court determines that the central issue of which committee has the authority to administer the collective bargaining agreement's grievance provisions is a triable issue of fact that cannot be decided on affidavits. Therefore, a jury trial is ordered for an early date in January 1949 to determine this authority, and all arbitration proceedings are stayed until then.

arbitration disputelabor lawcollective bargaininggrievance procedureunion representationintra-union conflictcourt interventionstay proceedingsjury trialprocedural law

References

Showing 1-10 of 543 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 05-14-01042-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 25, 2016

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyStatutory EmployerIndependent ContractorNegligence ClaimEmployment StatusRight to ControlTexas LawReversed JudgmentDirected Verdict

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Governmental ImmunityInsurance CoverageSelf-Insurance FundPolitical SubdivisionsInterlocal Cooperation ActBreach of ContractStatutory WaiverTrial Court JurisdictionDe Novo ReviewTexas Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Nov 08, 2006

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionContract ClaimsTort ClaimsInterlocal Cooperation ActLocal Government CodeWaiver of ImmunityPolitical SubdivisionsSchool District

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

References

Case No. 10-99-190-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 27, 1999

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Worker's CompensationDisability BenefitsHeart AttackPolice OfficerAppellate ReviewSettlement AgreementDismissal of AppealVacated JudgmentSelf-Insured EmployerGovernmental Entity

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 21, 1983

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Maritime LawLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensCanadian LawAdmiralty JurisdictionChoice of LawShipping ActWrongful DeathPersonal InjuryVessel Sinking

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Governmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityAttorney's FeesWorker's CompensationTexas Labor CodePlea to the JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealReimbursementSelf-Insured MunicipalityStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

arbitration disputelabor lawcollective bargaininggrievance procedureunion representationintra-union conflictcourt interventionstay proceedingsjury trialprocedural law

References

Showing 1-10 of 543 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.