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

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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Illinois Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. Lewis

This appellate case addresses a default judgment entered against defendants, Illinois Employers Insurance Company of Wausau and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, in a worker's compensation suit. The trial court struck the defendants' pleadings for failing to answer interrogatories and denied their request for a jury trial on damages. The appellate court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing such harsh sanctions without a prior order compelling discovery. It also found error in denying the jury trial on unliquidated damages. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Worker's CompensationDefault JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsInterrogatoriesTexas Civil ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionRight to Jury TrialDamagesAppellate ReviewRemand
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2005

Claim of Fiero v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development

Claimant's decedent, an employee of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development, was struck by a truck and died 16 days later after parking his car across the street from his office. Due to a heart condition, his employer had arranged for him to park in this lot. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship, awarding benefits. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was no special hazard at the off-premises location and the route was not controlled or endorsed by the employer, thus the accident was not a work-related hazard.

Workers CompensationScope of EmploymentGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Hazard ExceptionPublic Highway AccidentOff-Premises InjuryCausal RelationshipDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Lee

This worker's compensation case concerns Franklin N. Lee, a carpenter employed by Sabine Consolidated, Inc., who sustained severe injuries on June 28, 1975. The injury occurred after his work shift, within his employer's designated parking area on the construction site, while he was attempting to clear a path for his car by moving a company compressor. The defendant, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, appealed a jury verdict that found Lee's injury occurred in the course of his employment, challenging the application of the 'access doctrine.' The 'access doctrine' posits that employment includes a reasonable margin of time and space for an employee to pass to and from work, extending to injuries sustained on premises owned or controlled by the employer or closely related thereto. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that there was sufficient factual evidence to support the jury's finding under the access doctrine.

Worker's CompensationAccess DoctrineCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilityPremises InjuryJury VerdictAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIngress EgressTexas Civil Statute
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 15,595 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