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

Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Konvicka

Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, the insurer of A. O. Smith Corporation, sued to set aside an award granted by the Texas Industrial Accident Board to the legal beneficiaries of John Konvicka. Konvicka, an employee, died from injuries sustained after attempting to start a stalled car in the employer's parking lot and then on a public highway following a heavy rain. The insurance company argued that the injury occurred outside the scope of employment since it was off-premises and after working hours. The court, however, determined that the injury was compensable under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Act, emphasizing that the incident originated on the employer's premises and was incident to employment, aligning with the liberal construction of the statute. Consequently, the court denied the insurer's attempt to set aside the award and affirmed the beneficiaries' entitlement to compensation.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryCommuting HazardParking Lot InjuryTexas LawLiberal ConstructionAccidentFatal Injury
References
15
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. No. 10-04-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2005

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. William Ira Mathison

William Ira Mathison was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel found he was not in the course and scope of his employment. A jury determined that Mathison was in the course and scope of his employment, a finding appealed by Pacific Employers Insurance Company. The appeal argued that the evidence supporting the jury's finding was legally and factually insufficient. The court, however, noted Mathison’s supervisor considered the trip to repair a work laptop to be in furtherance of the employer’s business. The court found that Mathison was impliedly directed by his employer, thus acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Worker's CompensationCourse of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyTexas Labor CodeSpecial Mission ExceptionEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Beach

Jesse P. Beach was killed in an automobile accident while returning home from work, transporting three other members of his drilling crew. His wife and son sought workmen’s compensation from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. A jury rendered judgment for Beach’s wife and son, but the insurance carrier appealed. The core legal question was whether Beach’s fatal injuries were sustained in the course of his employment, particularly concerning the use of his personal vehicle for transport and the employer's compensation practices. The appellate court found that Beach's employment contract explicitly excluded payment for transportation time and the use of his vehicle, overturning the jury's verdict and ruling that he was not in the course of his employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentTravel TimeEmployment ContractCustom and UsageAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance ClaimDrilling Company
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1948

Texas Employers' Insurance v. Inge

This case involves a claim for workmen's compensation by the widow and children of T. G. Inge, a "roughneck" who died in an automobile accident. Inge was employed by P. W. Appleby, a drilling contractor, and was paid a mileage fee to transport himself and his fellow workers to and from a remote drilling site in Pecos County, Texas. The central legal question was whether Inge was acting in the course of his employment or as an independent contractor at the time of his fatal accident. Both the district court and the Court of Civil Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. This court affirmed the judgment, holding that the transportation arrangement was an essential and integral part of Inge's employment contract, thereby placing him within the course of his employment under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and rejecting the argument that he was an independent contractor for the transportation service.

Workmen's CompensationCourse of EmploymentIndependent ContractorTransportation AgreementFatal AccidentDrilling CrewMileage ReimbursementTexas LawAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Communications Workers of America/Graduate Employees Union (CWA) petitioned the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to be certified as the bargaining representative for graduate and teaching assistants at State University of New York (SUNY) campuses. Initially, PERB's Director dismissed the petition, concluding that these assistants were not 'public employees' under the Taylor Law, applying a balancing test. PERB subsequently rejected this balancing test, establishing a new standard focused on the existence of a regular and substantial employment relationship not explicitly excluded by the Legislature. Under this new standard, PERB reversed the Director's decision, determining that graduate and teaching assistants are covered employees and constitute an appropriate bargaining unit. SUNY then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination, arguing legal error in PERB's adopted test and that collective bargaining for academic issues violated public policy. The court upheld PERB's interpretation as reasonable and legally permissible, affirming PERB's determination and dismissing SUNY's petition.

Collective BargainingPublic EmployeesTaylor LawGraduate AssistantsTeaching AssistantsPublic Employment Relations BoardPERBCivil Service LawEmployment RelationshipPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weiss v. Legal Aid Society

Plaintiff, an attorney formerly employed by The Legal Aid Society, initiated this action seeking wage step increases. The case was initially removed to federal court under Section 301 of the National Labor Relations Act, based on an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement. However, through subsequent proceedings and clarifications by plaintiff's counsel, it became evident that the claim was predicated solely on an alleged independent oral promise made by the Society to individual attorneys, rather than a contract between an employer and a labor organization. The court concluded that Section 301 jurisdiction only applies to violations of agreements between an employer and a labor organization, and thus, it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the individual oral contract claim. Consequently, the action was dismissed.

Labour LawSubject Matter JurisdictionCollective Bargaining AgreementOral ContractWage DisputesDistrict CourtEmployment LawNational Labor Relations ActFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. LAO 0722567
Significant

Daniel Milbauer, Applicant vs. Erez Boostan, Uninsured Employers Fund

The Appeals Board affirms a judge's finding on the correct legal identity of an uninsured employer and establishes procedures to ensure the Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF) actively assists in identifying employers in future cases to avoid significant delays.

Uninsured Employers FundEn Banc DecisionJurisdictional IssueEmployer IdentityService of ProcessSubstantial EvidenceGood Faith EffortProvisional AppearanceDirector of Industrial RelationsLabor Code Section 3716(d)(4)
References
13
Case No. LAO 0722567
En Banc
Dec 18, 2003

Daniel Milbauer vs. Erez Boostan dba American Runner Attorney Service, Uninsured Employers Fund

The Appeals Board affirms a WCJ's finding on the correct legal identity of an uninsured employer and establishes procedures to ensure the Uninsured Employers Fund's (UEF) early and active participation in identifying such employers in future cases.

UEFEmployer IdentityService of ProcessJurisdictionReconsiderationEn Banc DecisionLabor CodeUninsured EmployerIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 18,794 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