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. 13-14-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Jose P. Baldonado

The case involves an appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS). Appellee Jose P. Baldonado sued for age discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after being denied a position by HHSC and subsequently terminated by DADS. Appellants argued a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Baldonado failed to establish a prima facie case for both claims and did not exhaust administrative remedies against DADS. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Baldonado raised sufficient fact questions regarding his qualifications, the causal link for retaliation, and the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court highlighted DADS's status as an agency within HHSC and its participation in the administrative complaint process as evidence of proper notice.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionTCHRAPrima Facie CaseAdministrative RemediesSovereign ImmunityInterlocutory AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Superior Snubbing Services, Inc. v. Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc.

Superior Snubbing Services, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc. The case originated from an injury sustained by a Superior employee, Daryll Faulk, while working under a Master Service Agreement between Superior and Mitchell Energy Corporation (now Devon Energy Operating, L.P.). Faulk sued Energy and others, leading to a settlement, after which Energy and Mitchell sought indemnity from Superior based on the contract. Superior argued that Energy's claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Texas Labor Code and the contract was unenforceable under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that under Texas Labor Code section 417.004, third-party beneficiaries like Energy are not permissible indemnitees because the agreement was not directly with the 'third party'.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationContractual LiabilityTexas Labor CodeOilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate ReviewReverse and Remand
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co. v. Bohls

Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company initiated a declaratory judgment suit to ascertain the coverage of an automobile liability insurance policy issued to Jesse G. Bohls, specifically concerning claims by farm laborers injured in an August 10, 1955 accident. The core issue revolved around an exclusion clause for employee injuries, which the Texas Board of Insurance Commissioners had revised. The Court had to determine if the farm laborers, Dorothy Isaac and Roxie Burr, were 'engaged in the employment' of Bohls at the time of the accident, as they were being transported home after work. Citing previous judicial interpretations, the court concluded that the laborers were not actively performing services for Bohls during their transportation. Consequently, the insurance policy was found to provide coverage for their claims, affirming the Trial Court's judgment in favor of the defendants.

Automobile liability insuranceInsurance policy coverageFarm laborersEmployee exclusion clauseDeclaratory judgmentScope of employmentTransportation of employeesWorkers' compensation lawTexas insurance lawInterpretation of insurance policy
References
5
Case No. No. 10-12-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 2013

Brian Dunn, Janel Dunn and Leisel Moseley v. Happy Hill Farm Academy/Home and Happy Hill Farm Children's Home Endowment Fund, Happy Hill Farm Children Home, Inc., A/K/A Dallas Cowboys Courage House

Appellants Leisel Moseley, Brian Dunn, and Janel Dunn appealed a summary judgment favoring Happy Hill Farm Academy/Home and related entities. They claimed wrongful termination, alleging Happy Hill Farm operates as a treatment or mental-health facility under the Texas Health and Safety Code, and contested the applicability of statutory exemptions. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Happy Hill Farm is neither a treatment nor a mental-health facility, but a basic child care facility with a school. Furthermore, the court found Happy Hill Farm exempt from former Chapter 242 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, as it operates under the jurisdiction of the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, a recognized state agency.

Summary judgmentWrongful terminationTexas Health and Safety CodeMental health facilityTreatment facilityBoarding schoolState agency exemptionEmployment at willRetaliatory dischargeMedical misconduct
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farm Services, Inc. v. Gonzales

Juan Gonzales successfully sued Farm Services, Inc. and Jeff Burke, Jr. for negligence after being exposed to a highly toxic pesticide discharged from an airplane while working. The trial court awarded Gonzales actual and punitive damages. Appellants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of expert and lay witness testimony, and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and gross negligence. The court also upheld the award for loss of future earning capacity, deeming any evidentiary errors non-reversible.

NegligencePesticide AccidentCrop Dusting LiabilityRes Ipsa LoquiturGross NegligenceExpert Witness AdmissibilityDiscovery ViolationsSufficiency of EvidenceDamages AwardLoss of Earning Capacity
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. Case Farms of Ohio, Inc.

A group of migrant farm workers filed a civil action against Case Farms of Ohio, claiming violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and state laws. The plaintiffs, recruited from Texas to work in Ohio, alleged misrepresentations regarding employment terms, transportation, and housing conditions. The court found Case Farms liable for numerous AWPA violations, including using an unregistered farm labor contractor, failing to provide written disclosures, providing false information, violating working arrangement terms, failing to comply with housing health and safety codes, and failing to ensure vehicle insurance and inspection for the 1996 plaintiffs. Some 1997 plaintiffs also proved violations related to written disclosures and housing occupancy terms. The court awarded statutory and actual damages to different groups of plaintiffs for these violations, while rejecting most FLSA and state law claims due to insufficient evidence or lack of agency.

Migrant workers' rightsAgricultural employmentWorker Protection ActFair Labor Standards ActWage and hour violationsUnregistered labor contractorSubstandard housingUnsafe transportationFalse promisesJoint employer doctrine
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. Presidio Valley Farms, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor initiated legal action against Presidio Valley Farms, Inc. and Bill Bishop for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act concerning underpaid farm workers. The defendants contended the workers were employed by independent contractor crew leaders, but the court determined the crew leaders were, in economic reality, employees of the defendants. Consequently, the defendants were held responsible for the minimum wage violations from 1975 to 1977 and for deliberately falsifying wage records. The court issued a permanent injunction to prevent future violations and ordered the defendants to pay a total of $85,248 in back wages, plus prejudgment interest, to the identified and unidentified underpaid employees.

Fair Labor Standards ActMinimum WageFarm WorkersIndependent ContractorsEmployee MisclassificationWillful ViolationInjunctionBack WagesAgricultural LaborWage and Hour
References
20
Case No. 2-06-192-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2007

Jose D. Posada v. Anivar Sarvelio Romero and Envirotec Construction Services, Inc.

Jose D. Posada sued Anivar Sarvelio Romero and Envirotec Construction Services, Inc. for neck and back injuries sustained when a water hose he was using became entangled in Romero's trailer. Envirotec, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, was Posada's employer. Posada incurred over $17,000 in medical expenses. Prior to trial, Envirotec filed a counter-affidavit by Dr. William Mitchell, an orthopedic surgeon, challenging the necessity and reasonableness of much of Posada's medical treatment. The trial court excluded a significant portion of Posada's medical expenses based on this counter-affidavit. A jury subsequently awarded Posada $5,420.00, including lost wages and a portion of past medical expenses. Posada appealed, raising two issues regarding Dr. Mitchell's expert qualifications and the validity of a supplemental report attached to the counter-affidavit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Dr. Mitchell qualified and the report properly incorporated.

Personal InjuryNegligenceMedical ExpensesExpert WitnessCounter-affidavitCivil ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeOrthopedic SurgeryChiropractic CareExcessive Treatment
References
9
Case No. 01-00-00256-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2002

Garza, Jose v. Exel Logistics, Inc., and Interim Services Pacific, LLC

Jose Garza sued Interim Services Pacific, L.L.C. and Excel Logistics, Inc. for on-the-job injuries. The defendants successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing they were joint employers and Garza's exclusive remedy was worker's compensation benefits. On appeal, Garza challenged the summary judgment, contending there was a material issue of fact regarding the joint employer status and whether he was a "covered employee" for Excel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that both Interim and Excel shared the right to control Garza's work, making them co-employers. Furthermore, the court found that Excel had effectively provided worker's compensation coverage for Garza through its contractual arrangement with Interim, thus extending the exclusive remedy provision to Excel.

Worker's CompensationDual EmploymentBorrowed Servant DoctrineSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyRight to ControlAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryEmployment LawTexas Law
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 17,112 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