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. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which designates private employers as hazardous based on injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Appellant Skilled Craftsmen argued that the state program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety issues already covered by federal standards, leading to duplicative regulation. The appellate court found that despite amendments to the Texas program, the designation of an employer as hazardous, with its public disclosure and potential business impacts, functions as a coercive measure intended to compel changes in workplace safety. This implicit regulation creates a conflict with the OSH Act's intent to avoid subjecting employers to dual regulatory schemes. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's ruling and rendered judgment that the Texas Hazardous Employer Program for private employers is preempted by federal law.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkplace SafetyFederal LawState LawDuplicative RegulationTemporary StaffingSIC CodeJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. 03-04-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2005

Skilled Craftsman of Texas, Inc. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Richard F. Reynolds, Executive Director

The case addresses whether the Texas Hazardous Employer Program, which identifies private employers with high injury rates, is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Skilled Craftsmen of Texas, Inc., designated as hazardous, argued that the program implicitly regulates occupational health and safety standards already covered by federal law, leading to duplicative regulation. The district court initially upheld the state program, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The appellate court found that the Texas program's practical effect is to coerce employers into changing behavior, thus conflicting with Congress's intent to avoid subjecting workers and employers to duplicative regulation. Consequently, the court held that the Hazardous Employer Program, as it applies to private employers, is preempted by the OSH Act.

PreemptionOSH ActHazardous Employer ProgramWorkers' CompensationState LawFederal LawOccupational SafetyHealth StandardsDuplicative RegulationTexas Court of Appeals
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elena E. Francisco, Inc. v. Texas Employment Commission

Manuel Diaz, a supervisor, was discharged from his employment for allegedly lying about a December 6, 1987 incident involving alleged marihuana use. The Texas Employment Commission (TEC) granted him unemployment compensation benefits, finding no misconduct. The employer appealed this decision, raising two points of error: (1) insufficient evidence to support the TEC's ruling and (2) trial court error in excluding evidence of other misconduct not presented to the Commission. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, which had upheld the TEC's ruling, emphasizing that the 'substantial evidence' rule is the correct standard of review for TEC decisions, despite statutory language implying a de novo trial. The court also found no error in the trial court's handling of the additional misconduct evidence.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployment TerminationWorkplace MisconductLyingMarihuana UseSubstantial Evidence ReviewTrial De NovoAppellate ProcedureAdministrative LawTexas Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandas Industries, Inc. v. Employers Fire Insurance Co.

Employers Fire Insurance Company, the appellee, sued Bandas Industries, Inc., the appellant, in Bell County district court to recover $36,354.00 in retrospective premiums on two insurance policies (worker’s compensation and comprehensive general liability). The policies, effective from June 1975 to June 1976, included a retrospective premium endorsement allowing for adjustment based on loss experience. Bandas Industries, Inc. argued the retrospective premium provision was unconscionable and counterclaimed for $100,000.00 due to policy cancellation. The district court ruled in favor of Employers Fire Insurance Company, finding the contract conscionable and denying the counterclaim. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, overruling Bandas Industries, Inc.'s points of error regarding unconscionability, parol evidence, policy cancellability, and the existence of a safety program.

Workers' compensationRetrospective premiumInsurance contractUnconscionabilityContract cancellationParol evidenceFindings of factConclusions of lawAppellate reviewJudgment affirmed
References
4
Case No. 2016-02-0380
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2017

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

Kathleen Delores LaGuardia sustained an ankle injury from a fall at her workplace, Total Holdings USA, Inc., which the employer subsequently denied. An initial expedited hearing found insufficient evidence that an employment hazard caused her slip and fall, leading to a denial of benefits. Following this, Total Holdings moved for summary judgment, arguing Ms. LaGuardia could not prove her injury "arose out of" employment, as she consistently stated she did not know the cause of her fall. Despite her treating physician relating the injury to a work slip and potential workplace hazards being identified, the court determined that mere speculation was insufficient to establish causation. Consequently, the court granted Total Holdings' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Ms. LaGuardia's case with prejudice.

Worker's CompensationSummary JudgmentArising Out of EmploymentSlip and FallCausationBurden of ProofTennessee LawEmployment HazardAnkle InjuryDismissed with Prejudice
References
3
Case No. 2016-03-1190
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2017

Hughes, Gwendolyn v. Security Finance

Gwendolyn L. Hughes, an assistant manager for Security Finance, filed for an expedited hearing after injuring her right knee upon returning from a smoke break at work on October 24, 2016. She fell on a rug but testified she did not know what caused her to fall. The central legal issue was whether her knee injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment or was idiopathic. The Court, presided over by Judge Lisa A. Lowe, noted that for an idiopathic injury to be compensable, an employment hazard must cause or exacerbate it. Finding no evidence of an employment hazard causing the fall, the Court denied her claim for medical and temporary disability benefits, concluding she was not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Knee InjuryIdiopathic FallWorkers' CompensationExpedited HearingCausationBurden of ProofScope of EmploymentInjury Benefits DenialAssistant ManagerTennessee Workers' Compensation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blair v. Texas Employment Commission

William G. Blair appealed an order requiring him to produce employment and payroll records to the Texas Employment Commission (TEC). Blair claimed the records were privileged under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, fearing self-incrimination, and offered to produce them only if granted immunity. The Attorney General then filed an application in the 72nd District Court of Lubbock County, which ordered Blair to produce the records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "required records" doctrine, which is an exception to the self-incrimination privilege for records mandated by law for governmental regulation, especially concerning public welfare and the collection of taxes for unemployment compensation.

Required Records DoctrineSelf-IncriminationFifth AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEmployment RecordsPayroll RecordsAdministrative SubpoenaGovernmental RegulationPublic Welfare
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 16,079 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