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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 1982

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Roberts

ABC, a telecommunications company, was cited for violating Labor Law § 162(3) for not providing a second meal period to employees working specific shifts. ABC challenged the violation, arguing the law did not apply to their industry or skilled workers, and that their collective bargaining agreement waived or substantially complied with the requirement. The Industrial Board of Appeals affirmed the violation, but Special Term annulled this decision, concluding that employees could waive the statutory meal period benefit through their labor contracts. The current court's majority affirmed Special Term's judgment. A dissenting opinion argued that Labor Law § 162(3) is a public policy health measure designed for worker protection and therefore cannot be waived by private agreements or collective bargaining, emphasizing that the statute's 'every person' language applies broadly.

Labor LawMeal PeriodsWaiver of Statutory RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyTelecommunications IndustryIndustrial CommissionerIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
19
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. 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. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Bush Industries, Inc.

This case involves a Chapter 11 reorganization plan for Bush Industries, Inc., a furniture manufacturer. The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders objected to the plan, arguing it violated the absolute priority rule, proposed improper general releases, and lacked good faith due to a "golden parachute" for the principal officer, Paul S. Bush. Bankruptcy Judge Carl L. Bucki determined that the debtor's enterprise value did not exceed outstanding claims, thus upholding the absolute priority rule regarding pre-petition stock cancellation. However, the court found that the renegotiated employment contract for Paul Bush and the proposed releases for corporate management constituted a breach of fiduciary duty by officers and directors, violating the good faith requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3). Consequently, the court denied confirmation of the plan in its present form, requiring the debtor to demonstrate good faith in a revised plan, possibly by distributing the premium secured by management to all shareholders.

Chapter 11 BankruptcyPlan of ReorganizationAbsolute Priority RuleFiduciary DutyCorporate GovernanceGolden ParachuteValuation MethodologiesDiscounted Cash Flow AnalysisComparable Companies AnalysisExit Multiple
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

IKEA U.S., Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals

This case concerns a petitioner who was found to have violated Labor Law § 191 (1) (a) for failing to pay weekly wages to manual workers. The initial determination by the Commissioner of Labor was confirmed by the Industrial Board of Appeals. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, had previously confirmed this determination and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division reviewed the proceeding, treating it as properly transferred. The Appellate Division found substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner employed manual workers and violated the Labor Law by using a bi-weekly payroll scheme instead of weekly payments. Consequently, the Appellate Division vacated the Supreme Court's judgment, confirmed the part of the determination finding the Labor Law violation, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

CPLR Article 78Labor Law ViolationWage PaymentManual WorkersBi-weekly PayrollSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionVacated JudgmentConfirmed DeterminationDismissed Petition
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 15,101 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