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

Alvarado v. Wingfoot Enterprises

Justice Taft's concurring opinion criticizes the application of the "right to control" test in determining employer status for workers' compensation purposes, particularly in "borrowed servant" scenarios. He argues that this test, traditionally used to impose liability, is misapplied when used to shield employers from common-law liability, leading to unfair results that undermine the workers' compensation scheme's intent. Taft highlights that previous court decisions, specifically Smith v. Otis Eng’g Corp. and Archem Co. v. Austin Indus., Inc., relied on a repealed statute and misinterpreted precedent by introducing the "right to control" test into this context. He advocates for an approach that prioritizes the payment of workers' compensation benefits as the determinant of employer immunity from common-law claims, aligning with the legislative intent of prompt compensation for employees and liability protection for subscribing employers. While bound by precedent, Justice Taft expresses a preference for the holding in Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Ammean, which he believes offers a fairer outcome consistent with the workers' compensation statute's purpose.

Borrowed Servant DoctrineRight to Control TestExclusive Remedy ProvisionEmployer ImmunityStatutory Repeal ImpactJudicial ConcurrenceCommon Law ClaimsWorkers' Compensation PolicySubrogationPrecedent Analysis
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2005

In Re CKG

This case before the Supreme Court of Tennessee addresses a novel question of legal maternity stemming from assisted reproduction. An unmarried couple, Dr. Charles K.G. (genetic father) and Ms. Cindy C. (gestational mother), used anonymously donated eggs fertilized by Charles's sperm, which Cindy carried to term, giving birth to triplets. After their relationship ended, Cindy filed a parentage action for custody and child support. Charles contested her parental standing due to a lack of genetic connection. The juvenile court and Court of Appeals found Cindy to be the legal mother, applying an "intent test." The Supreme Court affirmed Cindy's legal maternal status but vacated the "intent test" and estoppel findings. The Court established legal maternity based on a narrow set of factors: the pre-birth mutual intent for Cindy to be the legal mother and accept parental responsibilities; Cindy's gestation and birth of the children as her own; and the absence of a dispute with the genetic mother. The Court explicitly limited its holding to the specific facts, calling for legislative action on broad assisted reproduction policies. The judgments on custody, child support, and visitation were affirmed.

Parentage ActionAssisted ReproductionEgg DonationGestational CarrierLegal MaternityCustody DisputeChild SupportIntent TestGenetic TestConstitutional Rights
References
37
Case No. 07-08-0125-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2008

in the Interest of M. A. A., Child

Tony Sarinana, Jr., appealed the termination of his parental rights to M.A.A. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination suit. Sarinana was served while incarcerated but asserted his paperwork was lost during a transfer, leading to a default judgment. He consistently sought information and DNA testing, arguing his failure to answer was not intentional and he had a meritorious defense. The appellate court found that Sarinana met the Craddock test requirements for a new trial, concluding that his failure to respond was not intentional and that a new trial would not harm the child. Consequently, the judgment terminating his parental rights was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyDefault JudgmentAppellate ReviewDue ProcessIncarcerated ParentDNA TestingAbuse of DiscretionCraddock TestMeritorious Defense
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Morton

Michael Wayne Morton, convicted of his wife's murder in 1987, sought post-conviction forensic DNA testing of various pieces of evidence under chapter 64 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court partially denied his motion, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial of testing for evidence related to a separate murder and for fingerprint evidence, finding these did not meet the statutory requirements of being "secured in relation to the offense" or containing "biological material." However, the court reversed the denial for a blood-stained bandana recovered near the crime scene. The court concluded that if DNA testing on the bandana yielded exculpatory results (Christine's blood and a third party's DNA), there is a greater than 50% likelihood that Morton would not have been convicted, and thus remanded the case for further proceedings concerning the bandana.

forensic DNA testingmurder convictionappealcriminal procedureexculpatory evidenceblood-stained bandanaunidentified fingerprintscircumstantial evidencetime of deathunknown intruder theory
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simpson v. State

Appellant Hazel Simpson sued appellees for common-law damages after being sexually assaulted during her employment, despite having received workers’ compensation benefits. Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing her claim was barred by section 408.001 of the Texas Labor Code, which designates workers’ compensation as the exclusive remedy. Simpson contended her suit fell under an exception for intentional torts, asserting appellees' omissions were substantially certain to cause injury. The court, citing Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, clarified that an intentional failure to provide a safe workplace only constitutes an intentional injury if the employer believed their conduct was substantially certain to cause the injury. The court found Simpson's allegations did not constitute intentional conduct under the 'substantial certainty' test, deeming them negligence. Consequently, Simpson’s claims, and her son’s derivative loss of consortium claim, were barred. The trial court's grant of summary judgment for appellees was affirmed.

Sexual AssaultWorkers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DoctrineIntentional Tort ExceptionEmployer NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeLoss of Parental ConsortiumSubstantial Certainty TestWorkplace Safety
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 1995

Elson v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Plaintiff, who suffered from a known psychological condition, brought an action against defendant Con Edison and its security officers. The plaintiff alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and false imprisonment following an eight-hour threatening interrogation by security personnel investigating drug use. During the interrogation, the plaintiff was reportedly shown a gun, denied legal counsel and lunch, and coerced into a home search and lie detector test. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. However, the appellate court modified this decision, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, determining that the alleged conduct could constitute extreme and outrageous behavior and was not barred by Workers' Compensation Law as an intentional tort. The claims for negligence and false imprisonment remained dismissed.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment MotionWorkers' Compensation BarWorkplace InterrogationEmployer LiabilityPsychological HarmAppellate ReviewTort LawCon EdisonFalse Imprisonment
References
2
Case No. SRO 0088351
Significant
Mar 20, 2002

Cheryl Coldiron vs. Compuware; Permissibly Self-Insured, by And through Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Adjusting Agent

The board issues a notice of intent to sanction a third-party administrator for failing to disclose the correct insurance carrier for over six years and schedules a conference to clarify the employer-insurer relationship.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEn BancPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermissibly Self-InsuredThird-Party AdministratorHigh Self-Insured RetentionSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Excusable Error
References
5
Case No. 18-0852
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2020

Mo-Vac Service Company, Inc. v. Primitivo Escobedo, Individually, San Juanita Escobedo, Individually, and Martha Escobedo, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Fabian Escobedo

This case addresses the intentional-injury exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Fabian Escobedo, an employee of Mo-Vac Service Company, Inc., died in a truck accident, and his estate alleged his death was an intentional injury due to forced overwork and falsified logs. The Supreme Court of Texas clarified the "substantial certainty" test for intentional injury, requiring an employer to believe its actions are substantially certain to result in a particular injury to a particular employee, not merely increase overall risks. The Court found insufficient evidence that Mo-Vac subjectively believed Escobedo's specific accident was substantially certain to occur. Consequently, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and rendered judgment for Mo-Vac, concluding the claims were barred by the Act’s exclusive-remedy provision.

Intentional Injury ExceptionWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedySubstantial Certainty TestEmployer LiabilityEmployee FatigueWorkplace SafetyTexas Supreme CourtSummary JudgmentTort Law
References
18
Case No. ADJ12226694, ADJ12414651, ADJ12414992, ADJ12414993
Significant
Jun 17, 2024

GUILLERMO GONZALEZ, et al., Applicants vs. THE BICYCLE CASINO; ARCH INDEMNITY INS. CO., administered by GALLAGHER BASSETT, et al., Defendants

The Appeals Board consolidates two cases and issues a notice of intent to impose sanctions and costs against attorney Susan Garrett and hearing representative Lance Garrett for filing petitions for reconsideration with the willful intent to disrupt or delay proceedings.

Labor Code Section 5813SanctionsCostsAttorney's FeesImproper MotiveFrivolousUnnecessary DelayPetitions for ReconsiderationOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseWillful Intent
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 3,205 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