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

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daniel Mendivil v. Zanios Foods, Inc.

Daniel Mendivil, a former delivery-truck driver for Zanios Foods, Inc., appealed a trial court's decision to compel arbitration after his employment was terminated following an injury. Mendivil challenged the Arbitration Policy Statement (APS), arguing it was invalid due to lack of consideration, being illusory, and unconscionable. The appellate court examined the APS, a stand-alone arbitration agreement, and found that Zanios had not made mutual, binding promises to arbitrate its own disputes or be bound by arbitration results. Therefore, the court concluded that the APS lacked the necessary consideration, rendering it an illusory contract. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order compelling arbitration and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementIllusory PromiseLack of ConsiderationContract FormationEmployment DisputeTexas Labor CodeFederal Arbitration ActAppellate ReviewMutuality of ObligationAt-Will Employment
References
20
Case No. 13-06-00353-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2009

in Re: Rio Grande Regional Hospital

Rio Grande Regional Hospital sought a writ of mandamus to compel arbitration in a negligence suit brought by its former employee, Norma Gonzalez. Gonzalez, a housekeeper, was injured on the job and sued Rio Grande, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation. Rio Grande argued a signed 'Election to Participate' in an Employee Health and Safety Plan, which included an arbitration clause, bound Gonzalez. However, Gonzalez contended the agreement lacked consideration because she was ineligible for the plan's benefits as a 'PRN' employee and was denied coverage upon injury. The Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, denied the writ, affirming the trial court's decision. The appellate court ruled that Rio Grande's promise of benefits was illusory, rendering the arbitration agreement unenforceable due to a lack of consideration.

ArbitrationContract LawEmployment ArbitrationLack of ConsiderationIllusory ContractWrit of MandamusTexas Civil ProcedureFederal Arbitration ActWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberAppellate Review
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franks v. Brookshire Bros., Inc.

Mark Franks appeals a summary judgment in his personal injury action against his employer, Brookshire Brothers, Inc., a non-subscriber to worker's compensation insurance. Franks argues a release he signed is invalid due to its inapplicability to his specific injuries, lack of consideration, and Brookshire's alleged breach by non-payment of recited consideration. The court finds no material fact issue regarding the release's reference to his claims. However, it reverses and remands for trial, holding that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the release was supported by consideration, specifically the non-payment of ten dollars and the insufficiency of past benefits or return to work as consideration.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentRelease AgreementConsiderationContract BreachEmployer LiabilityNon-subscriberWorkers' CompensationTexas LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. E2014-01775-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2015

Jimmy L. Hensley v. Cocke Farmers Cooperative

Jimmy L. Hensley sued his former employer, Cocke Farmer’s Cooperative, to enforce a severance agreement. The agreement provided for severance pay if Hensley's employment was terminated without cause. The trial court granted Hensley's motion for summary judgment, finding the agreement valid, enforceable, and supported by adequate consideration, and awarded him severance benefits. The Cooperative appealed, arguing the contract was vague, lacked consideration, and the severance constituted an unenforceable penalty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the agreement was clear, continuing employment was sufficient consideration, and the severance benefits were not liquidated damages or a penalty, thus upholding the award for Hensley.

Severance AgreementAt-Will EmploymentContract EnforceabilitySummary JudgmentAdequate ConsiderationLiquidated DamagesMitigation of DamagesCorporate GovernanceBoard of DirectorsEmployment Contracts
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tripodi v. Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

Plaintiff Anthony Tripodi initiated a lawsuit against Local Union No. 38 and its counsel, Dubin, for malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case, initially filed in Connecticut, was transferred to the Southern District of New York. The central jurisdictional challenge arose from the Union's status as an unincorporated association with members in both Connecticut and New York, thereby destroying complete diversity of citizenship. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules, determined that New York law governed the substantive claims, which rendered the Union an indispensable party. Consequently, due to the lack of complete diversity and the indispensability of the Union, the court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, advising the plaintiff to seek redress in state courts where both defendants could be pursued in a single action.

Malicious ProsecutionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConnecticut Unfair Trade Practices ActSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionIndispensable PartyChoice of LawNew York LawConnecticut LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Magana v. Hammer & Steel, Inc.

The plaintiffs, Rodrigo and Maria Magana, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Robert B. Miller & Associates (barge owner), Hammer & Steel, Inc. (steel supplier), and Poston Industrial Maintenance Company, Inc. (coating applicator) after Rodrigo Magana was severely injured by a falling chunk of concrete while unloading a steel piling sheet from a barge in the Houston Ship Channel on January 4, 2001. Defendants Miller and Hammer filed motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the claims lacked admiralty flavor. The Court, presided over by District Judge Kent, denied both motions. While finding that 33 U.S.C. § 905(b) and Article III admiralty jurisdiction were not directly applicable, the Court determined it had jurisdiction over Miller via the Admiralty Extension Act (AEA), 46 App. U.S.C. § 740, because the injury was caused by a vessel or its appurtenance (the concrete). Supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 was found for the claims against Hammer and Poston due to their relation to the claims against Miller. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint to specify the governing law for each cause of action against each defendant.

Personal InjuryAdmiralty LawMaritime JurisdictionLongshoremenLHWCAAdmiralty Extension ActSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissNegligenceShip-side Accident
References
14
Case No. 13-14-00205-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2015

Cornelio Morales v. Hidalgo County Irrigation District 6

Cornelio Morales, former general manager for Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 6, appealed a summary judgment granted to the District in his breach of contract claim. Morales's employment contract included a severance clause for early termination not due to death or disability. The trial court had ruled the contract illegal for lack of consideration and as an unconstitutional gratuitous grant of public funds. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the contract served a legitimate public purpose and Morales's performance of duties constituted valid consideration, thus not violating the Texas Constitution. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Breach of ContractEmployment LawSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseIllegalityLack of ConsiderationTexas Constitution Article III Section 52(a)Public FundsSeverance PaymentGeneral Manager
References
28
Case No. 3-92-298-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1993

Receiver for Citizen's National Assurance Company, an Impaired Company v. Johnny Ray Hatley

This case involves an appeal by the Receiver for Citizen's National Assurance Company (appellant) against Johnny Ray Hatley (appellee) regarding workers' compensation benefits. Hatley was injured in a truck accident and received a third-party settlement, part of which went to the Receiver. The Receiver had signed a release of all claims and rights but argued that the settlement should be treated as an advance against future workers' compensation benefits under former article 8307, section 6a of the workers' compensation law, contending the release was not legally effective or lacked consideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Hatley, ruling that the release constituted a specific waiver by the Receiver of its statutory rights and was supported by valid consideration.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party LiabilitySettlement AgreementStatutory OffsetContractual ReleaseConsideration in ContractsSubrogation WaiverReimbursement RightsAppellate ReviewTravis County District Court
References
7
Case No. 03-04-00225-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2005

Dr. Byron D. Brent v. Benny Daneshjou Daneshjou Resources, Inc. and Daneshjou Daran, Inc.

Dr. Byron Brent appealed a take-nothing summary judgment rendered in favor of Benny Daneshjou, Daneshjou Resources, Inc., and Daneshjou Daran, Inc. Brent sued Daneshjou after discovering extensive mold and water damage to his house, alleging defective 1990 construction and inadequate 1993 and 1995 repairs. Daneshjou moved for summary judgment, asserting claims were time-barred and lacked merit. The district court granted summary judgment, which the appellate court affirmed. The court examined traditional and no-evidence summary judgment grounds, concluding most claims were barred by statutes of repose or limitations, and remaining claims lacked evidence of essential elements like consideration or proximate cause.

Construction defectsMold damageWater leaksStatute of limitationsStatute of reposeFraudulent concealmentSummary judgmentTexas appellate courtReal propertyNegligence
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 9,439 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