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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waste Disposal Center, Inc. v. Larson

Waste Disposal Center, Inc. appealed a judgment for Soila Valdez and Michelle Larson concerning property damage, negligence, trespass, and nuisance. Cross-appellants, including Valdez, challenged the dismissal of claims against the Estate of Franklin F. Kelley and the jury charge on strict liability, and the constitutionality of the exemplary damages cap. The court affirmed the jury's finding of property damages but reversed the award for mental anguish, citing insufficient evidence. It also upheld the dismissal against the Kelley Estate on jurisdictional grounds and affirmed the constitutionality of the exemplary damages cap, thereby affirming in part and reversing and rendering in part.

Property DamageNegligenceTrespassNuisanceExemplary DamagesMental AnguishConstitutional LawOpen Courts ProvisionSeparation of PowersJury Verdict
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tarrant County Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Doss

John Lee Doss, an employee of Tarrant County Waste Disposal, Inc. (TCWD), sustained personal injuries in a bulldozer fall. TCWD, a non-subscriber to Worker's Compensation, had a blanket accident policy which paid Doss's medical expenses. Doss signed a release related to partial disability coverage but subsequently sued TCWD for common law negligence. The trial court ruled in favor of Doss. TCWD appealed, arguing the release barred the claim, a new trial was justified by newly discovered evidence, and an offset for medical payments was due. The appellate court found the release only applied to policy claims, TCWD lacked diligence regarding new evidence, and that payments from TCWD's policy were not from a collateral source, thus allowing an offset. The judgment was reformed to reduce Doss's recovery by the medical expenses paid and affirmed as reformed.

Workers' Compensation Non-SubscriberBlanket Accident PolicyCollateral Source RuleRelease Agreement InterpretationNewly Discovered EvidenceMotion for New TrialContinuance DenialOffset for Medical ExpensesCommon Law NegligenceDue Diligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 1999

Town of Hempstead v. Inc. Village of Atlantic Beach

This case involves two related actions arising from inter-municipal agreements for waste disposal services. The defendants appealed from initial court orders concerning their obligations to pay minimum waste commitment tonnage fees and their entitlement to various credits, including those for private carters, recyclable materials, and yard waste. The plaintiffs cross-appealed regarding the methodology for calculating yard waste credits and the fees for using the Town's transfer facility. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, issued an initial order and a subsequent amended order upon reargument, clarifying several points. The Appellate Division affirmed the amended order, holding that the agreements unambiguously required villages to pay minimum tonnage fees regardless of actual waste delivered. The court also determined that the villages were only obligated to pay transfer facility fees based on actual waste delivered and that any ambiguities regarding yard waste credits should be interpreted against the Town as the drafter of the agreements.

Inter-municipal agreementsWaste disposalSummary judgmentContract interpretationMinimum commitment feesYard waste creditTransfer facility feesUnambiguous agreementsExtrinsic evidenceAmbiguity construction
References
10
Case No. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
Case No. DC-15-604
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2015

City of Rio Grande City, Texas, and Joel Villarreal, Herman R. Garza III, Arcadio J. Salinas III, Rey Ramirez, and Dave Jones in Their Official Capacities v. BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP D/B/A Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley

BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley (Plaintiff) sued the City of Rio Grande, Texas and its elected officials (Defendants) after the City attempted to prematurely terminate its exclusive solid waste collection contract with Allied Waste and entered into an agreement with Grande Garbage Collection Co. (Intervenor/Plaintiff). Allied Waste sought a temporary injunction, arguing that the City's actions constituted a breach of contract and violated various constitutional rights, including the Contract Clause and Due Process. The District Court, presided over by Judge Migdalia Lopez, conditionally granted Allied Waste's request for a temporary injunction on November 10, 2015, restraining the City from interfering with Allied Waste's exclusive contractual rights. The defendants, including Grande Garbage Collection Co., are appealing this temporary injunction.

Contract DisputeExclusive FranchiseWaste ManagementMunicipal LawTexas LawConstitutional RightsDue ProcessInterlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionBreach of Contract
References
31
Case No. 13-00-241-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2002

Waste Disposal Center, Inc. v. Larson, Michelle and Soila Valdez

The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas partially affirmed and partially reversed a judgment from a jury trial involving Waste Disposal Center, Inc. as appellant and Michelle Larson and Soila Valdez as appellees. Waste Disposal appealed the jury's award of actual damages for diminution in market value and mental anguish, and exemplary damages. The court found sufficient evidence for diminution in market value for both appellees' properties but reversed the mental anguish damages awarded to Valdez, citing a lack of evidence for severe mental pain. Furthermore, the court upheld the award of exemplary damages, as actual property damages were sustained. Cross-appellants (landowners including Valdez) appealed the dismissal of their suit against the Estate of Franklin F. Kelley and the trial court's failure to charge the jury on strict liability, both of which were affirmed or deemed waived by the appellate court. Finally, Valdez's constitutional challenge to the exemplary damages cap was rejected, with the court affirming its constitutionality under both the open courts provision and separation of powers doctrine.

Property DamageExemplary DamagesMental AnguishDiminution in Market ValueStrict LiabilityJurisdictionEstate LiabilityOpen Courts ProvisionSeparation of PowersConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ELG Utica Alloys, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioner Universal Waste, Inc. initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation's denial of its application to reclassify a 21-acre parcel in Utica, Oneida County, from a Class 2 to a Class 3 inactive hazardous waste disposal site, or to have it removed from the registry entirely. The site, contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from a former scrap metal operation, had been designated a Class 2 site by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) since 1985 due to a significant environmental threat, triggering a complex legal and administrative history. Despite an Administrative Law Judge's recommendation for reclassification to Class 3 following a hearing, the Commissioner ultimately denied the request in October 2011, concluding that petitioner failed to demonstrate the site no longer posed a significant threat to the environment. The Commissioner's decision highlighted the presence of massive quantities of PCBs, the absence of effective cleanup measures, and evidence of contamination exceeding state standards both on-site and migrating to the adjacent Mohawk River and wetlands. The Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner's determination, dismissing the petition and finding no jurisdictional overreach, no substantial prejudice from a five-year delay in the decision, and that the Commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Environmental LawHazardous WastePCB ContaminationSite ReclassificationAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingEnvironmental Conservation Law (ECL)Inactive Hazardous Waste Site RegistryAppellate DivisionJudicial Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abax Services Corp. v. Local 78 Asbestos, Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers

The defendants, Local 78 Asbestos, Lead and Hazardous Waste Laborers, AFL-CIO and Sal Speziale, appealed an order denying their motion to dismiss certain causes of action. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's claims were not preempted by Federal law, thus affirming the denial of dismissal on that ground. However, the court determined that the third cause of action, based on an alleged Donnelly Act violation, failed to properly identify co-conspirators. Consequently, this specific cause of action was dismissed, with leave for the plaintiff to replead. The order was modified and affirmed.

Tortious Interference with ContractDonnelly ActFederal PreemptionMotion to DismissLeave to RepleadAppellate ReviewLabor LawCivil ProcedurePleading RequirementsCo-Conspirators
References
3
Case No. CA 12-01329
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2013

MULLIN, CARL D. v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, LLC

Carl D. Mullin, an employee of Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., sustained injuries after falling from a ladder at a Waste Management of New York, LLC facility. Mullin initiated an action against Waste Management, which subsequently filed a third-party claim against Riccelli for breach of contract. Waste Management alleged that Riccelli failed to name it as an additional insured on various required insurance policies, including workers' compensation, commercial general liability, and automobile liability. The Supreme Court granted Waste Management's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order, also upholding the denial of Riccelli's motion to introduce new evidence, deeming it untimely and unlikely to alter the determination.

Breach of ContractInsurance CoverageAdditional Insured ClauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmationThird-Party LitigationPersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentLadder FallContractual Indemnity
References
2
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
Showing 1-10 of 973 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