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. 14-11-00902-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2012

Deandrew Price v. Uni-Form Components Company

Deandrew Price, a temporary employee provided by AGL Elite Business Solutions, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Uni-Form Components Company (UCC) in his negligence suit. Price sustained a severe foot injury while working as a machine operator at UCC. UCC asserted the affirmative defense of exclusive remedy under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA), claiming Price was a temporary employee covered by its workers' compensation insurance and presented a certificate of insurance. Price challenged the coverage, arguing UCC failed to produce the full policy and that his personal affidavit indicated no workers' compensation involvement from UCC. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding UCC sufficiently established coverage through the certificate and affidavit, noting that an employer cannot split its workforce regarding workers' compensation coverage and that premium payment issues do not affect an employee's coverage.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExclusive Remedy ProvisionTemporary EmployeeBorrowed Servant DoctrineNegligenceInsurance CoverageTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
17
Case No. 08-01-00329-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2002

Albertson's, Inc. v. Lara, Eyna

Albertson's, Inc. appealed a trial court's finding that notice regarding an injured former employee's impairment rating was insufficient. Eyna Lara, the injured employee, received a report from Dr. Hollander certifying maximum medical improvement (MMI) and a 5 percent impairment rating (IR), along with a Form TWCC-69 containing a handwritten 'not valid' notation, and Form EES-19. Lara did not dispute the rating within the 90-day period stipulated by Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Rule 130.5(e). The trial court concluded that the notice was insufficient to trigger the 90-day rule, thus preventing the rating from becoming final. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the misleading nature of the forms, particularly the 'not valid' notation, rendered the notice inadequate to inform Lara of her rights and obligations, and thus did not trigger the 90-day dispute period.

Impairment RatingWorkers' CompensationMaximum Medical ImprovementNotice RequirementsTexas Administrative CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionDue ProcessStipulated FactsTimeliness of Dispute
References
6
Case No. 2019-08-0191
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2021

Russell, Frederick v. Aluma Form, Inc.

Frederick Russell, an assembly technician for Aluma Form, Inc., suffered a left shoulder and neck injury in January 2018. The employer accepted a shoulder sprain but contested a labral tear and impingement. The Court reviewed conflicting medical testimony from Dr. Jones and Dr. Dalal regarding causation and impairment. The Court ruled that Mr. Russell successfully proved causation for his shoulder injury and that he was justified in seeking unauthorized treatment due to the employer's actions. Consequently, Aluma Form was ordered to pay permanent partial disability benefits of $11,879.49, temporary disability benefits of $9,308.86, and Mr. Russell's medical bills from Dr. Dalal and Memphis Surgery Center. Dr. Dalal was designated as the authorized treating physician for future medical benefits.

Shoulder InjuryLabral TearImpingement SyndromeMedical CausationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityUnauthorized Medical TreatmentOrthopedic SurgeryWorkers' Compensation ClaimsRange of Motion Impairment
References
5
Case No. CA66-H-509
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1970

Kurio v. United States

The case involved Bernard R. Kurio's suit for a refund of 1963-1964 payroll taxes against the United States. A proposed settlement failed due to IRS processing errors, misapplication of plaintiff's payments, and a lack of mutual assent regarding the terms. The court concluded that no binding settlement contract was formed. Consequently, the court granted Kurio a refund of $15,612.89, ordered the government to correct its tax records by reapplying payments to the correct accounts, and dismissed the government's counterclaim seeking to enforce the alleged settlement. The court also criticized the IRS's inefficient automated data processing system and its failure to address errors promptly.

Tax RefundPayroll TaxesContract DisputeSettlement AgreementIRS Administrative ErrorsAutomated Data Processing SystemBurden of ProofDiscovery SanctionsTax LiensStatutory Interpretation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Critical Care Support Services, Inc.

This case addresses a motion filed by Critical Care Support Services, Inc. (the Debtor) seeking to expunge a $7,011,990.39 claim by the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) concerning federal withholding and FICA taxes for 1987-1988. The central dispute revolved around whether the nurses supplied by the Debtor were employees or independent contractors during this period. The Debtor, which took over operations from Criticare and reclassified nurses from employees to independent contractors without timely filing required tax forms, argued for expungement. The court, applying the common law test for employee status and considering factors like control, payment, and the nature of the business, determined that the nurses were indeed employees. As a result, the court denied the Debtor's motion and upheld the IRS's claim.

Employee ClassificationIndependent ContractorTax LiabilityIRS ClaimBankruptcy CourtSuccessor in InterestEmployment TaxesFICA TaxesWithholding TaxesCommon Law Test
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LeBlanc v. Shirey

The plaintiffs challenged a $500 penalty imposed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for allegedly filing false W-4 forms, arguing it violated their Constitutional right to due process and sought to enjoin its collection. They contended the liability was a penalty, not a tax, and therefore the Anti-Injunction Act should not apply. Presiding Judge Joe J. Fisher denied the injunctive relief, citing a recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that considered such penalties as taxes under the Anti-Injunction Act. The court found no reasonable basis for the plaintiffs' claims of tax exemption and determined that the IRS procedures provided adequate due process, which the plaintiffs failed to properly utilize. Additionally, the court addressed and dismissed separate claims by some plaintiffs against private parties, deeming them frivolous and brought in bad faith. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the cases with prejudice, and ordered some plaintiffs to pay court costs and attorneys' fees.

Due ProcessTax PenaltyIRS ProceduresFalse Withholding InformationAnti-Injunction ActSummary JudgmentFrivolous LitigationJudicial SanctionsConstitutional RightsWage Garnishment
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Phinney

This consolidated memorandum opinion addresses three cases seeking refunds of Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) taxes. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) alleged the plaintiffs, who operate shrimp boats in Rockport, Texas, were employers of shrimp captains and deck hands. Plaintiffs argued these workers were independent contractors, not employees, under the common-law tests. The court reviewed factors such as the right to control, right of discharge, integration of work, profit/loss opportunities, permanency, and the parties' own views. Ultimately, the court determined that the plaintiffs were indeed employers and denied the tax refund claims.

FICA taxesFUTA taxesemployment taxtax refundemployer-employee relationshipindependent contractorcommon law testright to controlshrimp fishing industrymaritime law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Anjost Corp.

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Anjost Corporation and its principals, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including issues with minimum wage, overtime pay, tip withholding, and uniform costs. The court addressed Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, following a prior conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. Evaluating the proposed classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were largely met. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification in a modified form, establishing three specific classes: a Tipped Employee Class, a Spread of Hours and Wage Statement Class, and a Uniform Claims Class. The decision also included orders for the defendants to disclose class member information and for both parties to jointly prepare a proposed class notice.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage and Hour ClaimsOvertime WagesMinimum WageTip WithholdingUniform CostsWage StatementsSpread of Hours Premium
References
71
Case No. ADJ7960157 (RDG 0095395) ADJ4276340
Regular
Apr 03, 2013

DAVID SANDROCK vs. INDEPENDENT BUSINESS FORMS, INC., PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Independent Business Forms, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted this reconsideration. The Board intends to further study the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications regarding this matter must be filed in writing with the Office of the Commissioners.

SandrockIndependent Business FormsPreferred Employers Insurance CompanyADJ7960157ADJ4276340ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRedding District OfficeSan Francisco
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2012

Allen Dwayne Bates v. Elizabeth Ann Brown

This document is an application filed by an inmate, V.T.S.b, seeking to proceed in District Court without prepaying fees or costs due to indigence. The applicant declares an inability to pay the costs of proceedings and asserts entitlement to the requested relief. The form details the applicant's incarceration status within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and requests legal materials, specifically law books and envelopes, to support the pursuit of their case. The application was stamped by the Seventh Court of Appeals on August 22, 2012.

Inmate RightsIndigency ApplicationFee WaiverCourt CostsPro Se LitigationTexas Legal SystemCriminal Justice SystemAppellate ProcedureAccess to JusticeCorrectional Facility
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 823 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