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

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. 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. 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
Apr 22, 1980

In re the Claim of Caruso

This case concerns an appeal by Professional Data Services, Inc. from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The board affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's ruling that a claimant, who worked from home as a key punch operator for Professional Data Services, Inc., was an employee rather than an independent contractor, making her eligible for benefits. The employer provided equipment, controlled work distribution, and set deadlines, which were key factors in determining the employment relationship. The court rejected the employer's argument that a signed contract classifying the claimant as an independent contractor was binding, citing concerns about duress and the Industrial Commissioner's statutory authority to determine employment status under Labor Law § 597. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the employer-employee relationship.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance benefitsLabor LawSubstantial evidenceContractual agreementDuressAdministrative Law JudgeAppeal Board decisionKey punch operator
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Chalcoff v. Project One

William Chalcoff died in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11, 2001. His wife, the claimant, sought workers' compensation benefits, but a dispute arose regarding his employment status—specifically, whether he was an independent contractor or an employee of Marsh and McLennan or Project One Computer Consultants. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board found Chalcoff to be an independent contractor, thus denying benefits. The claimant appealed this decision to this Court. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that substantial evidence supported the determination that Chalcoff was an independent contractor, citing factors like his status as the sole employee and shareholder of Accutek Information Systems, Inc., and the nature of his contractual arrangements.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardClaimant BenefitsMarsh and McLennan
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Theatre Techniques, Inc. v. United Scenic Artists Local 829 of Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades

This case addresses an application by the defendants, United Scenic Artists, Local 829, seeking clarification of a prior court order. The defendants requested a finding that the status of their designer members as independent contractors is irrelevant to the ongoing litigation, which involves antitrust claims. The plaintiff alleges that these designer members, who are independent contractors, effectively control the Local and conspired with New York City scenic shops to restrict the scenery construction market, thereby violating the Sherman Act. The court denied the defendants' specific request for clarification, ruling that the status of the designer members is indeed relevant to determining the Local's eligibility for labor exemptions under antitrust laws. This decision emphasizes that a union's antitrust immunity can be jeopardized if it is found to be controlled by independent businessmen pursuing anticompetitive objectives, and the issue of the designers' status is to proceed to trial.

Antitrust LawLabor ExemptionIndependent ContractorsUnion ControlSherman ActCollective BargainingMarket AllocationScenic ArtistsLocal 829Unfair Labor Practices
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Company v. Theraco, Inc.

Continental Casualty Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America sued Theraco, Inc. for additional workers’ compensation premiums, disputing the classification of physical therapists as independent contractors. Theraco’s insurance contracts with CNA and Travelers included provisions for premiums based on employees or persons posing a risk of workers’ compensation liability. The Department of Commerce and Insurance and the trial court initially sided with Theraco, ruling the physical therapists were independent contractors and not liable for additional premiums. However, upon appeal, this Court affirmed the independent contractor status but reversed the decision regarding the "risk of loss" provision. The Court concluded that the insurers were exposed to the risk of defending potential lawsuits, even if only to litigate the therapists' employment status. Consequently, Theraco was found liable for retrospective premiums totaling $44,089 to CNA and $97,522 to Travelers.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsIndependent Contractor StatusEmployer-Employee RelationshipRisk of Loss ProvisionInsurance Contract InterpretationRetroactive Premium AssessmentPhysical TherapistsAppellate ReviewAdministrative Agency DecisionStatutory Employee
References
17
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

Willis v. Titan Contractors Corp.

The appellant, an employee of Titan Contractors, sustained personal injuries when he slipped on a skiff in the Houston Ship Channel. He filed a lawsuit under the Jones Act, claiming seaman status, but a jury found he was not a seaman and attributed 50% comparative negligence to him. The appellant sought to recover damages under the unseaworthiness doctrine and the Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing several points of error on appeal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's 'take nothing' judgment, rejecting all of appellant's contentions, including claims of seaman status as a matter of law, erroneous jury instructions, unseaworthiness, and recovery under the LHWCA. The court also found no error in the admission of certain evidence or the lack of submission regarding maintenance and cure.

Jones ActSeaman StatusPersonal InjuryContributory NegligenceUnseaworthinessLongshoremen and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActAppellate ReviewJury VerdictMaritime LawTexas
References
30
Case No. ADJ7271617
Regular
Aug 27, 2012

LEONARD KEY vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case involves applicant Leonard Key seeking workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained while teaching a music production course. The defendant, Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), contended that Key was an independent contractor and not an employee. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the trial judge's finding that Key was an employee, emphasizing LACOE's control over the means and manner of his work, despite an independent contractor agreement. Key lacked control over class schedules, room assignments, and was paid hourly, weighing against independent contractor status. Therefore, the WCAB found that LACOE failed to meet its burden to prove Key was an independent contractor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLeonard KeyLos Angeles County Office of EducationCorvel CorporationADJ7271617Opinion and Decision After ReconsiderationWCJemployee statusindependent contractordirection and control
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,687 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