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. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. 09-06-433 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2007

SureTec Insurance Company v. Myrex Industries

SureTec Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment decision favoring Myrex Industries in a suit on a payment bond under the Texas Government Code's McGregor Act. Myrex, a subcontractor, sued SureTec as surety after the general contractor, Proficient Construction Services, Ltd., allegedly failed to pay. The central dispute was whether Myrex provided timely notice of its claim, specifically if the Code Construction Act's extension for deadlines falling on a Sunday applied to the McGregor Act's fixed 15th-of-the-month deadline. The Court of Appeals, Ninth District of Texas, held that the Code Construction Act was inapplicable because the McGregor Act's deadline was a "date certain," not a period requiring computation of days. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding Myrex's notice untimely, and rendered judgment that Myrex take nothing.

payment bondsummary judgmentTexas Government CodeCode Construction ActMcGregor Actnotice of claimappellate reviewstatutory interpretationsubcontractorsurety
References
9
Case No. No. 08-14-00135-CV (TC# 2013-DCV-3700)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2015

ReadyOne Industries, Inc. v. Roberto Casillas

ReadyOne Industries, Inc. appealed an order denying its motion to compel arbitration in a worker's compensation nonsubscriber tort case filed by Robert Casillas, who alleged an on-the-job injury and sued for negligence. ReadyOne sought to enforce a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate (MAA) signed by Casillas. Casillas asserted defenses including that the MAA was illusory and procedurally unconscionable. The appellate court found that ReadyOne had established the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The court systematically rejected each of Casillas's defenses, including arguments regarding the illusoriness of the agreement, procedural unconscionability, applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act, preemption of state workers' compensation schemes, Tenth Amendment violations, and unenforceability under specific sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code and Texas Labor Code. Concluding that the trial court abused its discretion, the appellate court reversed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Arbitration AgreementWorkers' Compensation NonsubscriberNegligence ClaimMotion to Compel ArbitrationContract EnforceabilityIllusory ContractProcedural UnconscionabilityFederal Arbitration ActState Law PreemptionTenth Amendment
References
21
Case No. 03-03-00643-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Alpine Industries, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas

Alpine Industries, Inc. appealed a district court's summary judgment that held it responsible for collecting Texas sales taxes as a direct sales organization. The Comptroller of Public Accounts determined Alpine, which utilizes independent salespersons to sell air-purification equipment, fell under a provision of the Texas Tax Code requiring it to collect and remit sales tax. Alpine contested this, arguing the Comptroller failed to prove it was a direct sales organization, did not make an individualized determination for administrative efficiency, and that the tax violated the Commerce, Due Process, and Equal Protection clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, ruling that the Comptroller properly applied the tax code and that the tax did not infringe upon Alpine's constitutional rights. Furthermore, the court upheld the Comptroller's counterclaim for over $2 million in back taxes.

Tax lawSales tax liabilityDirect sales organizationAdministrative efficiencyCommerce ClauseDue ProcessEqual ProtectionConstitutional lawSummary judgmentAppellate review
References
25
Case No. 14-08-00795-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2010

Transcontinental Insurance Company, as Subrogee of the Estate of Reabon Jackson, Jr., Reabon Drusila Jackson (A Minor), Nettie Adams and Donald Robinson v. Briggs Equipment Trust and Genie Industries, Inc.

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed three summary judgments in a case involving wrongful-death and subrogation claims. Appellants Transcontinental Insurance Company and SelenEr Love sued Briggs Equipment Trust and Genie Industries, Inc. after a fatal industrial accident. The court affirmed the summary judgment against Love's claims due to procedural default. However, it reversed and remanded Transcontinental's claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding negligence, product defect, and causation by the defendants, as well as Briggs's liability as a nonmanufacturing seller. The court also clarified that the Texas Family Code's Uniform Parentage Act does not strictly govern paternity determinations in wrongful-death actions, relying on a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for filial relationships. An unopposed motion to unseal paternity test results was granted.

Product LiabilityWrongful DeathWorkers' CompensationSubrogationSummary JudgmentNegligenceDesign DefectCausationPaternityGenetic Testing
References
24
Case No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2014

Ricardo Torres v. Precision Industries, P.I., d/b/a Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick and Vicki Hedrick

Ricardo Torres, an undocumented worker, appealed the Hardeman County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge claim against Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick, and Vicki Hedrick. Torres alleged he was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim for a back injury sustained on the job. The trial court had ruled that an unauthorized alien lacked standing to bring such a claim as they were incapable of legal employment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that undocumented employees do have standing to pursue retaliatory discharge claims in Tennessee, as the Workers' Compensation Act broadly defines 'employee' to include those lawfully or unlawfully employed. The court reasoned that retaliatory discharge actions protect employees' rights to file workers' compensation claims and preventing such claims by unauthorized aliens would create an incentive for employers to hire illegal workers and deny them benefits without consequence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUndocumented WorkerImmigration StatusSummary Judgment ReversalEmployee StandingEmployment LawTennessee Appellate CourtPublic Policy ExceptionEmployer Retaliation
References
52
Case No. 13-23-00194-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2024

Bernardino Frausto v. RC Industries, LLC

Appellant Bernardino Frausto appealed a trial court’s summary judgment in favor of appellee RC Industries, LLC (RCI). Frausto, an RCI employee, sustained a head injury at work, leading to a workers’ compensation claim. Following his injury, RCI placed Frausto on light duty at their Dilley office and informed him that transportation, previously provided for field work, would no longer be available. Frausto subsequently failed to report for his light duty assignment for an extended period, citing lack of transportation. RCI interpreted these unexcused absences as a resignation, adhering to their attendance policy. Frausto then sued RCI for wrongful termination, alleging retaliation for filing his workers’ compensation claim under the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that RCI presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Frausto’s termination based on his violation of a uniformly enforced attendance policy, and Frausto failed to provide evidence of pretextual motives.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealAttendance PolicyLight Duty WorkEmployee TransportationTexas Labor CodeCausal LinkNon-Discriminatory ReasonPretext Evidence
References
14
Case No. M2003-01583-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2004

Jeffrey P. Hopmayer v. Aladdin Industries, L.L.C.

Plaintiff Jeffrey P. Hopmayer sued Aladdin Industries, LLC for breach of an employment contract, alleging the company failed to provide him with 4,000 phantom units upon his termination without cause. Aladdin denied the units had vested. The trial court found the employment offer sufficiently definite and a valid contract, concluding that the phantom units had no vesting requirements and Aladdin had breached the contract, awarding Hopmayer $160,000 plus prejudgment interest. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the phantom unit provision was enforceable and that Aladdin had breached the agreement. The Court also affirmed the denial of Hopmayer's separate claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-102.

Employment ContractBreach of ContractPhantom UnitsVesting RequirementsMutual AssentContract EnforceabilityDamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate ReviewCorporate Reorganization
References
12
Case No. 09-05-365 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2006

Pamela Griggs v. Triple S Industrial Corporation

Pamela Griggs appealed a summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Triple S Industrial Corporation, in a workers' compensation retaliation case. Griggs alleged termination after attending her husband's workers' compensation benefit review conference, believing it constituted protected activity. The Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that participation in a benefit review conference, which does not involve taking testimony, does not qualify as 'testifying or about to testify' under Texas Labor Code Ann. § 451.001(4). Therefore, Griggs was found not to have engaged in protected activity under the anti-retaliation statute.

Workers' CompensationRetaliationAnti-Retaliation StatuteBenefit Review ConferenceProtected ActivitySummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate DecisionEmployment Law
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 8,977 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