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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Henry Havens, while working as a welder on the roof of the new Johnson Bros. Chevrolet warehouse, suffered severe electrical shock and personal injuries when a steel rod he was handling contacted a high voltage line owned and maintained by Dallas Power & Light Company. National Automobile Casualty Insurance Company intervened to recoup $14,440.95 in compensation benefits paid to Havens. The trial court granted Dallas Power & Light Company's motion for summary judgment, leading to a take-nothing judgment. Havens appealed, asserting that questions of fact existed regarding the defendant's notice of the dangerous condition, the defendant's negligence, and the plaintiff's contributory negligence. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the defendant was not required to anticipate dangerous consequences from the high voltage lines, which complied with safety codes, and had no notice of the specific sign erection project that created the hazardous situation.

Summary JudgmentElectrical AccidentHigh VoltagePersonal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseForeseeabilityConstructive NoticeSafety Code ComplianceWorkers' Compensation Claim
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The plaintiffs, John Kline and the estate of Ronald E. Pollen, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Schoharie County, which dismissed their complaint against Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation. The original action sought damages for injuries and death sustained in 1969 when a crane, operated by the plaintiffs, contacted live power lines owned by Niagara Mohawk. The trial court had found insufficient notice to establish foreseeability of the hazard. On appeal, the court determined that the record contained sufficient evidence of constructive notice regarding the extensive construction project and the likelihood of equipment operating near the power lines. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment, finding that a jury could rationally find negligence on the part of Niagara Mohawk, and ordered a new trial.

Appellate ReviewNegligenceForeseeabilityConstructive NoticePower LinesWorkplace AccidentCrane OperationDismissal ReversedNew Trial OrderedUtility Company Liability
References
7
Case No. 03-01-00187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2002

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

This appeal concerns Power Resource Group, Inc.'s challenge to the Public Utility Commission of Texas's interpretation of rule 23.66, which governs the obligation of electric utilities to purchase energy and capacity from qualifying facilities (QFs). Power Resource argued that utilities must contract with QFs within 90 days of notification, irrespective of the QF's ability to deliver power within that period. The Commission asserted that a legally enforceable obligation only arises if the QF can provide energy within 90 days. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Commission's interpretation as reasonable and not preempted by federal law, and denied Power Resource's contract and fraud claims against Texas-New Mexico Power Company.

Public Utility CommissionElectric UtilitiesQualifying Facilities (QF)PURPAEnergy Purchase ObligationAdministrative Rule InterpretationStatutory InterpretationContract LawFraud ClaimsSummary Judgment
References
39
Case No. 19-0643
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2021

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

This case addresses a property owner's liability for injuries sustained by a contractor's employees on its commercial property. Juan Valdez and Alfredo Teran, employees of Paredes Power Drilling, were injured while constructing concrete pilings for Los Compadres Pescadores, L.L.C., when rebar they were handling contacted an energized high-voltage power line. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, ruling that Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code applied. However, the Court concluded that the employees had conclusively established the property owner's actual knowledge of the dangerous condition and its control over the work. It also determined that the danger presented by the energized power line was not open and obvious as a matter of law, thus supporting the judgment against Los Compadres.

Premises LiabilityContractor LiabilityHigh Voltage Power LineActual Knowledge of DangerRight to Control Contractor WorkVicarious LiabilityAgency RelationshipOpen and Obvious DangerConstruction AccidentRebar Contact
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) sued Metrocom, Inc. d/b/a Whi-teco, and Whiteco Industries, Inc. d/b/a Whiteco (Whiteco) for indemnification of costs incurred after a Whiteco employee was injured by a high-voltage power line. Whiteco appealed a summary judgment granted to TU Electric, claiming immunity under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code section 417.004. The court considered whether this immunity statute precluded TU Electric's right to indemnification under Health and Safety Code section 752.008, which addresses liability for contact with electrical power lines. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the immunity statute does not apply to a suit for indemnity arising from a breach of the statutory duty imposed by the health and safety code.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationStatutory DutyHigh Voltage Power LineSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityHealth and Safety CodeLabor CodeCode Construction ActStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case addresses whether a party entitled to indemnification for damages to an injured employee can recover indemnity under the Public Utilities Act from an employer covered by the Workers’ Compensation statute. Tommy Eugene Miller, an employee of Eller Outdoor Advertising, was electrocuted by a power line owned by Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P). Miller's family received workers' compensation benefits from Eller and later settled a wrongful death action against HL&P. HL&P then sued Eller for indemnification, arguing Eller violated the Public Utilities Act. The trial court ruled that the Workers' Compensation Statute precluded HL&P's suit. However, the appellate court reversed, holding that the specific indemnification provision of the later-enacted Public Utilities Act should control over the more general Workers' Compensation Act, allowing for harmonization of the statutes. The case was remanded to determine the merits of HL&P's indemnification claim.

IndemnificationPublic Utilities ActWorkers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationHigh Voltage LinesElectrocutionWrongful DeathExclusive RemedyThird-Party LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff Archebald C. Haughton, Jr., a maintenance worker at Hudson Valley Community College, suffered severe injuries from electrocution while attempting to restore power during an outage. Despite knowing that the power company, Niagara Mohawk, was assembling a crew, plaintiff's supervisors directed him to work on high-voltage equipment in a dark and smoky room, without proper protective gear. Plaintiff and his wife sued Niagara Mohawk and T & J Electrical Corporation, an electrical contractor, alleging breach of duty of care. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the actions of the plaintiff and his supervisors constituted an unforeseeable intervening act. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, absolving the defendants of liability.

Summary JudgmentProximate CauseIntervening ActElectrocutionWorkplace AccidentHigh VoltageDuty of CareNegligenceAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The plaintiff, an electrical lineman, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for severe injuries sustained while working at the government-owned Volunteer Ordnance Works (VOW) in Tennessee. The accident occurred due to a defective electrical substation and live high-voltage lines, despite assurances that the power was off. The court found the government negligent in both maintaining the hazardous substation and failing to ensure power was cut off, invoking the doctrine of nondelegable duty for inherently dangerous activities. The court rejected the government's defenses including contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Judgment was awarded to the plaintiff for $53,984.81.

Federal Tort Claims ActElectrical AccidentLineman InjuryNegligenceDiscretionary FunctionIndependent ContractorContributory NegligenceAssumption of RiskWorkers' CompensationNondelegable Duty
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Clarence Godfrey, a bulldozer operator, suffered severe leg and knee injuries when a dump truck operated by a Travis Hardy employee struck a power line, causing an electric line to fall. Godfrey sued Travis Hardy, Houston Lighting & Power Company, and Kirksey Trucking Company. Houston Lighting & Power settled with Godfrey for $25,000 and was dismissed via an instructed verdict. A jury found Travis Hardy negligent, awarding Godfrey $75,283.90. The trial court credited the $25,000 settlement against the judgment, reducing Travis Hardy's liability to $50,283.90. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that section 2(d) of article 2212a Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. correctly applied because Houston Lighting & Power's negligence was not submitted to the jury.

NegligencePersonal InjurySettlement CreditApportionment of DamagesInstructed VerdictCivil ProcedureTexas LawWorker's Compensation InterventionJoint TortfeasorsAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The Sosas sued Central Power & Light, Houston Power & Light, and General Electric for the wrongful death of Mr. Sosa, alleging liver disease from toxic chemical exposure in the early 1970s. Mr. Sosa died on June 1, 1991, and the Sosas filed suit on June 1, 1993. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing the Sosas' First Amended Original Petition's allegations showed Mr. Sosa was incapacitated for twenty years, implying knowledge of injury. The Sosas attempted to file a Second Amended Original Petition without leave of court to invoke the discovery rule, but it was struck as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the Second Amended Original Petition was untimely, leave to file was properly denied, the First Amended Original Petition's allegations constituted judicial admissions, and thus, the limitations defense barred the claim as Mr. Sosa was aware of his injuries more than four years prior to his death.

Wrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmended PleadingDiscovery RuleJudicial AdmissionsToxic ExposureLiver DiseaseAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 1,905 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