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. 03-03-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., D/B/A Jeanne N. Taylor D.D.S., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor had sued State Farm, alleging that the insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing her business a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinct from "auto liability insurance" as defined in Article 5, Subchapter A of the Texas Insurance Code. The court further concluded that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) had the authority under Article 5.02 to regulate such policies under other rating laws, thus making PIP and UM/UIM coverage not mandatory for Taylor's specific policy.

Insurance LawMulti-peril PolicyHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. v. Texas Utilities Electric Co.

Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) sued Metrocom, Inc. d/b/a Whi-teco, and Whiteco Industries, Inc. d/b/a Whiteco (Whiteco) for indemnification of costs incurred after a Whiteco employee was injured by a high-voltage power line. Whiteco appealed a summary judgment granted to TU Electric, claiming immunity under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code section 417.004. The court considered whether this immunity statute precluded TU Electric's right to indemnification under Health and Safety Code section 752.008, which addresses liability for contact with electrical power lines. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the immunity statute does not apply to a suit for indemnity arising from a breach of the statutory duty imposed by the health and safety code.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationStatutory DutyHigh Voltage Power LineSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityHealth and Safety CodeLabor CodeCode Construction ActStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 08-04-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

W. E. Stephens MFG. Co. v. Howard Goldberg, in His Individual Capacity and D/B/A Supreme Laundry and D & G Investment Company

W.E. Stephens Manufacturing Company (Stephens) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Howard Goldberg, d/b/a Supreme Laundry, and D & G Investment Company (D & G). Stephens, a garment manufacturer, contracted with Tony Flores to assemble and finish garments. Flores sub-contracted the laundering to D & G. When Flores failed to pay D & G, D & G refused to release garments belonging to Stephens, asserting a lien. Stephens sued D & G for conversion and breach of a bailment contract. D & G claimed a constitutional and statutory lien. The trial court granted summary judgment for D & G. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the garment lien under Section 70.002 of the Texas Property Code did not apply as D & G had returned multiple lots of garments prior to payment, and the contract specified a future time of payment.

Summary JudgmentConversionBailment ContractGarment LienPossessory LienTexas Property CodeContract LawAppellate ReviewRemandSubcontractor
References
20
Case No. 07-06-0379-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2007

Dawn Gayken, D.D.S. v. Ann D. Ewton, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Merle Clement Ewton, D.D.S.

Dawn Gayken, D.D.S. (appellant) appealed a trial court's order. The appellant's counsel informed the court that Dawn Gayken had filed a voluntary petition as debtor under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. For administrative purposes, the appeal is removed from the docket of this court and abated. The appeal will be reinstated upon a proper motion showing that the stay has been lifted or that the court may otherwise proceed with the disposition of the cause.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayAbatementAppellate ProcedureVoluntary PetitionDebtorStay LiftedJurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsCivil Procedure
References
1
Case No. ADJ7826039
Regular
Nov 07, 2014

Jason Horton vs. Oakland Raiders, ACE American Insurance

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's contentions. The Board rescinded the finding of industrial psychiatric injury, finding it barred by the six-month employment rule under Labor Code section 3208.3(d). The Board affirmed the original decision regarding the 15% increase in permanent disability pursuant to Labor Code section 4658(d). Ultimately, the applicant's permanent disability rating was adjusted to 64%, and attorney fees were modified accordingly.

Industrial injuryProfessional football playerCumulative traumaPsychiatric injurySix-month ruleLabor Code § 3208.3(d)Employment contractActual servicePermanent disabilityLabor Code § 4658(d)
References
0
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Case No. ADJ7702084
Regular
Jan 23, 2012

WILLIAM BRAGA vs. CITY OF SEBASTOPOL, REDWOOD EMPIRE MUNICIPAL INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether the City of Sebastopol is entitled to a 15% reduction in permanent disability payments to William Braga, a fire captain who sustained hearing loss. The defendant argues this reduction is permissible under Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A) because they offered Braga regular work. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration, finding the statute inapplicable because Braga lost no time from work and continued his regular duties. The WCAB reasoned that Labor Code section 4658(d) is intended to incentivize employers to return injured workers to employment, a purpose not served when the employee never stopped working.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCity of SebastopolRedwood Empire Municipal Insurance FundFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationFire CaptainCumulative PeriodHearing LossPermanent DisabilityScheduled Rate
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond D Construction Corp. v. New York State Department of Labor (DOL) Bureau of Public Works

This decision addresses Diamond D Construction Corp.'s motion for reconsideration, challenging the court's prior denial of a preliminary injunction. The court re-evaluates its stance on Eleventh Amendment immunity, concluding that Diamond D's claim for prospective injunctive relief against the Department of Labor's enforcement actions is not barred, distinguishing previous cases like Tekkno and Yorktown. While affirming the applicability of the Younger abstention doctrine, the court acknowledges that a 'narrow' exception for bad faith or harassment by the DOL might apply. To resolve factual disputes regarding whether the DOL acted in bad faith or violated Diamond D's substantive due process rights, the court grants the motion for reconsideration in part and orders evidentiary hearings.

Federal CourtEleventh AmendmentYounger AbstentionDue ProcessProcedural Due ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessMotion for ReconsiderationPreliminary InjunctionState SovereigntyEvidentiary Hearing
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 14,023 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