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

Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. v. Lytle

Cromwell General Contractor, Inc. appealed a Circuit Court judgment that granted workmen's compensation and medical expenses to Allen B. Lytle. The core issue was whether Lytle, a brick washer, was an employee or an independent contractor when he suffered an injury due to a scaffold collapse. The trial court deemed Lytle an employee, citing the defendant's right to control and terminate. However, the appellate court applied multiple tests, including control over work, method of payment (per job/thousand bricks), and who furnished tools and helpers. The Supreme Court found that Lytle largely operated independently, supplying his materials and labor, with limited supervision from Cromwell. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, classifying Lytle as an independent contractor, and dismissed the compensation claim.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusScaffold AccidentBrick CleaningControl TestRight of TerminationMethod of PaymentFurnishing ToolsTennessee Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Glaze v. Villa Manufacturing Co.

The court examined whether the decedent was an independent contractor, determining it was a factual question within the Workers' Compensation Board's purview. Evidence supported the independent contractor status, including the appellant’s field supervisor's testimony of no control over the decedent's work or hours, merely checking quality. Further proof included the decedent's bill for work, accepted payment via a non-payroll check without deductions, and the appellant's long-standing business practice of referring kitchen cabinet installations to subcontractors. Despite potential contrary inferences, the board's prerogative to credit its chosen evidence was upheld. Consequently, the decision appealed from and the order of the Appellate Division were reversed, reinstating the Workers' Compensation Board's original decision to disallow the claim.

Independent ContractorWorkers' CompensationQuestion of FactSubstantial EvidenceClaim DisallowanceAppellate ReviewEmployer ControlPayment MethodSubcontractors
References
2
Case No. 03-01-00491-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District Coppell Independent School District La Porte Independent School District And Port Neches-Groves Independent School District v. Felipe Alanis, Texas Commissioner of Education The Texas Education Agency Carol Keeton Rylander, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts And the Texas State Board of Education Alvarado I.S.D. Anthony I.S.D. Aubrey I.S.D. Bangs I.S.D.

Four Texas school districts, led by West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, appealed the dismissal of their action seeking a declaratory judgment that the state's school finance system is unconstitutional. The districts contended that the $1.50 tax cap had become a de facto floor, forcing them to tax at the maximum allowable rate to provide education, thereby constituting an unconstitutional state ad valorem tax. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the districts failed to state a viable cause of action because they did not allege they were forced to tax at the cap specifically to provide the constitutionally-mandated 'accredited education.' The court also found the claim unripe, emphasizing that the focus should be on whether the state's requirements forced a lack of meaningful discretion in setting tax rates for an accredited education, not on a desired level of education or the number of districts taxing at the cap.

School Finance ReformConstitutional ChallengeAd Valorem TaxationEducation FundingDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineTexas Constitution Article VII, Section 1Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1-eProperty Tax Cap
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2001

MacRo v. Independent Health Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiffs Cheryl Macro and Kim Zastrow, insured under a group health contract with Independent Health through the Tonawanda City School District, initiated a class action in state court to challenge Independent Health's modification of infertility treatment coverage. Defendant Independent Health removed the case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that their claims fell under New York Insurance Law, which is exempt from ERISA preemption by the saving clause, and that their health plan qualified as a 'governmental plan' also exempt from ERISA. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the claims were indeed saved from ERISA preemption and that the plan was exempt, thus rendering federal subject matter jurisdiction absent. The court accordingly remanded the case back to New York State Supreme Court.

Infertility CoverageHealth Insurance DisputesERISA PreemptionSaving ClauseGovernmental PlansRemoval to Federal CourtSubject Matter JurisdictionNew York Insurance LawClass Action LitigationEmployee Benefits Plan
References
31
Case No. 01-02-00542-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Michelle Ramirez, Ind. & on Behalf of the Estate of Jesus Ramirez v. Worthington Contractors, Inc.

Michelle Ramirez, individually and on behalf of her deceased husband's estate and their three minor children, appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Worthington Constructors, Inc., Worthington Pavers, Inc., and David E. Worthington. This wrongful death action arose after Jesus Ramirez, a day laborer for Worthington's independent contractor, died from injuries sustained after falling from a pickup truck. Ramirez contended that Worthington retained control over the independent contractor and thus had a duty to provide a safe work environment for Ramirez. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Worthington owed no legal duty to Ramirez because he was not an employee and Worthington did not retain control over the independent contractor or his employee. The accident occurred after work was finished and off the work site, not as a result of an unsafe work environment.

Wrongful deathSummary judgmentIndependent contractorEmployer liabilityDuty of careRight to controlWorkplace accidentAppellate reviewTexas lawSubcontractor
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Superior HealthPlan, Inc.

Plaintiffs, sales representatives for Superior HealthPlan, Inc., alleged misclassification as independent contractors and sought overtime wages under the FLSA, along with claims under ERISA and COBRA. The ERISA and COBRA claims were previously dismissed. Defendants Superior HealthPlan, Inc. and Centene Corporation moved for summary judgment, arguing Plaintiffs were independent contractors or exempt outside sales employees. The Court, without ruling on the independent contractor status, focused on the outside sales employee exemption. It found that Plaintiffs' primary duty was making sales away from the employer's business and that they met the external indicia for outside salespersons, despite some employer supervision. Consequently, the Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that Plaintiffs were exempt outside sales agents as a matter of law. Superior's counterclaims for overpayment against two plaintiffs remain pending.

FLSAFair Labor Standards ActOvertime wagesIndependent contractorEmployee misclassificationOutside sales exemptionSummary judgmentSales representativesMedicare Advantage plansEmployer-employee relationship
References
20
Case No. ADJ8967361
Regular
Nov 26, 2014

FELIPE GARCIA (DECEASED) GUILLERMINA GARCIA (WIDOW) vs. SALVADOR GAYTAN dba G\&P AG MANAGEMENT CONTRACTORS, INC.; STAR INSURANCE, Adjusted by MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

This case involved a petition for reconsideration by the applicant in a workers' compensation matter where the deceased worker, Felipe Garcia, was initially found to be an employee but later deemed an independent contractor by the Appeals Board. The applicant argued the Board erred by disregarding the WCJ's credibility assessment and by not applying Labor Code section 2750.5 to unlicensed contractors. The Board denied the petition, finding no evidence the deceased worker was engaged in activities requiring a contractor's license under Business and Professions Code sections 7000 and 7026. Therefore, Labor Code section 2750.5 was inapplicable, and the prior decision finding the applicant an independent contractor was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent contractorEmployee statusReconsiderationLabor Code section 2750.5Contractors' State License LawBlew v. HornerGarza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.Rinaldi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Unlicensed contractor
References
4
Case No. 2015-02-0283
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2016

Hartley, Kevin v. Allen Hammons (General Contractor)

Kevin Hartley filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking workers' compensation benefits against Alan Hammons, a general contractor, after sustaining serious injuries from a fall on a job site. Hartley argued he was an employee of Brian Glover, a brick mason contracted by Hammons, and thus Hammons' insurance carrier should be responsible due to Glover lacking workers' compensation insurance. Hammons and Glover contended Hartley was an independent contractor. The Court, weighing statutory factors and case law, found Hartley to be an independent contractor and denied his claim for temporary disability and medical benefits.

Independent ContractorEmployment StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsConstruction AccidentExpedited HearingLabor LawStatutory InterpretationBurden of ProofTennessee LawGeneral Contractor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antwine v. Dallas Independent School District

The independent executrix of Elmer Lee Antwine's estate appealed a summary judgment granted to the Dallas Independent School District in a worker's compensation case. The executrix contended that the school district should be estopped from asserting that an issue existed as to the total and permanent nature of Antwine's disability and that issues of material fact existed. The executrix also sought an award of statutory attorney fees. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that unaccrued worker’s compensation benefits terminate with the death of an injured employee when the injury is general and the claim has not been reduced to final judgment. The court also found no basis for the executrix's claims of estoppel or attorney's fees, emphasizing that the statutory scheme dictates the terms of compensation.

Summary JudgmentWorker's Compensation BenefitsEmployee DeathGeneral InjuryLump Sum PaymentEstoppel ClaimAttorney's FeesStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Ammean

Richard J. Ammean sued Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. (Texas Contractors) and Bayer Corporation for a back injury sustained at work. Ammean, an employee of Texas Contractors working on Bayer's premises, had previously received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Contractors' insurer. The appellate court reversed the judgment against Texas Contractors, ruling Ammean's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act due to his receipt of benefits. However, the court affirmed the judgment against Bayer, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Bayer's negligence, through its supervisory control and its employee forklift driver, proximately caused Ammean's injury. The court also upheld the jury's damage award for future loss of earning capacity against Bayer.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy ProvisionNegligenceBorrowed Servant DoctrinePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsLoss of Earning CapacityEmployer Liability
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 3,329 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