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. 14-07-00103-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2008

Sonic Systems International, Inc. v. Randy Croix, Eddie Croix Insurance Agency, Inc., and Texas Mutual Insurance Company F/K/A Texas Worker's Compensation Insurance Fund

Appellant, Sonic Systems International, Inc. (Sonic), sued appellee, Texas Mutual Insurance Company f/k/a Texas Worker=s Compensation Insurance Fund (TMI), based on TMI=s denial of insurance coverage relative to a work-related injury sustained by a Sonic employee. Sonic also sued appellees, Randy Croix and Eddie Croix Insurance Agency, Inc. (collectively the Croix Parties), based on their alleged failure to properly procure insurance to cover the employee=s claims. The trial court granted separate motions for summary judgment filed by TMI and the Croix Parties. The trial court rendered a final judgment that Sonic take nothing from all appellees. Sonic presents four appellate issues, challenging both summary judgments. The appellate court reverses the portions of the judgment ordering that Sonic take nothing on all its contractual and extra-contractual causes of action against TMI to the extent they are based on TMI=s denial of the claim for Texas workers= compensation benefits at issue in this suit. It affirms the portions of the judgment ordering that Sonic take nothing on all its contractual and extra-contractual causes of action to the extent they are not based on TMI=s denial of the Texas workers= compensation claim. It also affirms the summary judgment on Sonic=s request for declaratory relief and the judgment in favor of the Croix Parties.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployer ClaimsInsurance Agent NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor LawDeceptive Trade Practices ActBad Faith ClaimsOut-of-State Workers' InjuryElection of Remedies
References
21
Case No. 00-CV-1161
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2000

Gallagher v. INTERNATIONAL BROTH. OF ELEC. WORKERS

Plaintiff Michael Gallagher sued several entities, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and its President J.J. Barry, alleging age discrimination in employment referrals and retaliation through IBEW Local Union No. 43's hiring hall. Gallagher claimed the collective bargaining agreement facilitated discrimination against older workers and that Local 43 was an agent of the International defendants. The defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Gallagher failed to name the International defendants in his EEOC charge, thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies and that no identity of interest existed between the named and unnamed parties. The court granted the motion, dismissing the claims against the International defendants due to Gallagher's failure to file an administrative complaint against them and the lack of an agency relationship or ratification of discriminatory acts. Furthermore, the court found the claims to be time-barred under both state and federal statutes of limitations.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawLabor UnionCollective Bargaining AgreementEEOCNYSDHRExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Judgment on PleadingsStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2008

Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. v. United States Agency for International Development

Plaintiffs, including Alliance for Open Society International and Pathfinder International, sued federal agencies (USAID, HHS, CDC) challenging a provision of the Leadership Act requiring grant recipients to explicitly oppose prostitution, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights. The District Court had previously granted a preliminary injunction, finding the "Policy Requirement" unconstitutionally compelled speech and not narrowly tailored. After the case was remanded to consider new "organizational integrity" guidelines, the Court granted the motion to add Global Health Council and InterAction as plaintiffs, finding they had associational standing. The Court subsequently ruled that the new guidelines failed to remedy the constitutional defects, still compelling speech and imposing an unconstitutionally burdensome and non-narrowly tailored separation requirement for affiliate organizations. Consequently, the Court granted the preliminary injunction, barring the enforcement of the Policy Requirement against the plaintiffs, though DKT International was precluded from relief due to res judicata.

First AmendmentCompelled SpeechUnconstitutional ConditionsSpending ClausePreliminary InjunctionAssociational StandingHIV/AIDS FundingProstitution PolicyGovernment GuidelinesNarrow Tailoring
References
0
Case No. 11-22-00273-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2024

City of Stephenville, Self-Insured v. Anna Belew, Jodi Belew, Minor C.B., and Minor R.B.

This workers' compensation death benefits case addresses whether pancreatic cancer, experienced by a firefighter, is a compensable injury arising from their employment under Texas law. The central issue revolved around which party held the burden of proof to establish that the cancerous condition was a compensable injury. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed the 266th District Court of Erath County's decision. The Court clarified that Section 607.055 of the Government Code requires the claimant to initially establish a general causal link between their cancer and specific occupational exposures, as determined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Concluding that the appellees failed to meet this statutory burden because the IARC's 98th Monograph did not associate pancreatic cancer with firefighting, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the City.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsPancreatic CancerFirefighter PresumptionOccupational DiseaseBurden of ProofStatutory InterpretationIARCCausationTexas Law
References
100
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. International Printing Pressmen & Assistants' Union of North America

Chief Justice Bond dissents from the majority's decision, which reversed a trial court's judgment. The case involves L. R. Smith, who was suspended and fined by Local Union No. 47 for drunkenness and misconduct. Smith sued the International Printing Pressman & Assistants Union of North America, alleging tortious acts. The dissent argues that the International Union should not be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for the local union's actions, which were outside its by-laws and not authorized or ratified by the International. Furthermore, the dissent contends that Smith's tort claim is barred by the two-year statute of limitation. The dissent concludes that the trial court's judgment, which found no agency and applied the statute of limitation, should have been affirmed.

Agency LawRespondeat SuperiorLabor UnionsInternal Union RemediesStatute of LimitationsTort ActionBreach of ContractUnion DisciplineDissenting OpinionLocal Union Autonomy
References
8
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. 01-17-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Michael Fallon, M.D. sued the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after they denied his request for certain information, claiming it was held by an affiliated private entity, the MD Anderson Physicians Network. The trial court dismissed Fallon's suit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Fallon's mandamus claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Cancer Center had a right of access to the Physicians Network's records, thereby making the information "public information" under the PIA. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Fallon's declaratory judgment claim, stating that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Public Information ActSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusGovernmental BodyNon-profit OrganizationPhysicians NetworkMedical Peer ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
56
Case No. 14-19-00488-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2020

Gensetix, Inc. v. Baylor College of Medicine, Diakonos Research, Ltd., and William K. Decker

Appellant Gensetix, Inc. appealed the trial court's dismissal of its claims against Baylor College of Medicine, Diakonos Research, Ltd., and William K. Decker under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). The appellate court determined that the TCPA applied to Gensetix's claims, which involved communications related to medical research on cancer treatment, thus constituting a matter of public concern. However, Gensetix failed to provide clear and specific evidence of damages for its claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, tortious interference, and civil conspiracy, offering only conclusory allegations. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal of Gensetix's claims was affirmed, and the court also upheld the constitutionality of the TCPA's mandatory fee-shifting provisions.

Texas Citizens Participation ActTCPAAnti-SLAPPFree SpeechRight of AssociationIntellectual PropertyPatent RightsBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceCivil Conspiracy
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Kitty Hawk International, Inc. (In Re Kitty Hawk, Inc.)

The case involves a motion for partial summary judgment by Kitty Hawk International, Inc. (Debtor) against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Union). The Union sought a declaratory judgment that its members' claims under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) were immediately due and payable as administrative expenses, arguing the CBA was not properly rejected. The Debtor contended these were pre-petition claims not entitled to priority. The court ruled in favor of the Debtor, holding that claims arising from a CBA not rejected under § 1113 are still subject to the priority scheme of § 507. It found that both the CBA Claims and WARN Claims were not administrative claims because no services were rendered post-petition, making them lower priority unsecured claims.

BankruptcyChapter 11Collective Bargaining AgreementWARN ActClaim PriorityAdministrative ExpensesWage ClaimsDebtor-Employer RelationsUnion ClaimsSummary Judgment
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Silva v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency

Jose Silva, an employee of Mar Jea Equipment, Inc., was allegedly injured during construction work on property owned by the Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency. Silva sued the Agency for personal injuries. The Agency, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Mar Jea for indemnification. Mar Jea moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, arguing that the Agency's claim for common-law indemnification was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Although the Agency contended it had a claim for contractual indemnification, the subcontract between Mar Jea and the general contractor required written consent from the Agency, which was never obtained. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Mar Jea's motion to dismiss, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,886 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