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

United States v. Doe

This case involves an antitrust investigation into the linen supply industry in the New York Metropolitan area. Grand Jury subpoenas were served on various linen supply companies (Suppliers), their association (Linen Supply Institute of New York), and a union (Laundry Workers International Union, Local 284 AFL). The Suppliers, Association, and Union filed motions to quash or modify these subpoenas, citing unreasonableness, oppressiveness, and jurisdictional doubts. District Judge McGOHEY largely denied these motions, asserting the Grand Jury's broad investigative powers and confirming the reasonableness of the subpoena's scope and timeframe. However, the court did grant limited relief by exempting documents already possessed by the Government and by narrowing certain demands related to the Union's internal financial data.

AntitrustGrand JurySubpoena Duces TecumQuashing SubpoenaModifying SubpoenaLinen Supply IndustryLabor UnionInterstate CommerceJudicial DiscretionDepartment of Justice
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2006

Beaucejour v. General Linen Supply & Laundry Co.

The defendants, General Linen Supply and Laundry Co., Inc., and Cascade Linen Supply Corp., appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The appellate court modified the order by granting summary judgment to General Linen, finding that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions barred the plaintiff's tort claim against their employer. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Cascade, concluding that Cascade failed to provide sufficient evidence, based on personal knowledge, to establish it was an alter ego of General Linen, and thus could not invoke the same defense. The decision highlights the importance of presenting competent evidence in admissible form to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. This case underscores the legal requirements for establishing an employer-employee relationship defense and the alter ego doctrine in summary judgment motions.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionsAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate ReviewPrima Facie EntitlementProbative ValuePersonal KnowledgeTriable Issue of Fact
References
8
Case No. 13-99-271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2002

West, Randy and Antonia West v. Maintenance Tool and Supply Co., Inc. and Rene Rodriguez, Individually and as Representative of Maintenance Tool and Supply Co., Inc.

The appellants, Randy and Antonia West, appealed a default summary judgment granted in favor of appellees, Maintenance Tool & Supply Co., Inc. and Rene Rodriguez. The claims at issue were workers' compensation retaliation and defamation, along with sanctions imposed against West's counsel. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the retaliation claim, finding that Maintenance Tool & Supply Co. established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for West's termination and that West had adequate notice of the hearing. The defamation claim was also affirmed for summary judgment due to judicial proceeding privilege. However, the court reversed the order imposing sanctions, ruling that the trial court abused its discretion by not providing notice and an evidentiary hearing as required by procedural rules before imposing sanctions.

Summary judgmentWorkers' compensation retaliationDefamationRule 13 sanctionsAbuse of discretionNotice of hearingMotion for new trialCausation employment lawJudicial proceeding privilegeAttorney conduct
References
35
Case No. 13-04-00550-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2005

in Re: Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc.

Linda Garcia, a truck driver for Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc., was injured in a vehicular accident and subsequently terminated. Mission deemed the accident 'major preventable' and terminated Garcia under company policy. Garcia sued Mission, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Mission moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement within its employee health and safety plan, which the trial court denied. Mission then filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeals reviewed the petition, concluded the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration, and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to withdraw its order.

Arbitration AgreementWrit of MandamusWrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimFederal Arbitration ActEmployment LawInterstate CommerceTruck DriverMotion to Compel ArbitrationAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 10-14-00132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2016

Tractor Supply Co. of Texas, L.P. v. Kenneth Edd McGowan

Kenneth Edd McGowan sued Tractor Supply Co. of Texas, L.P. for personal injuries sustained while working as a temporary employee at Tractor Supply's distribution center. McGowan was injured when a pallet of dog food was pushed off a rack by a Tractor Supply employee. The trial court found Tractor Supply liable and awarded McGowan damages, but Tractor Supply appealed, asserting an exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court determined that McGowan was considered an employee of Tractor Supply for workers' compensation purposes and that Tractor Supply was covered by an insurance policy obtained by Job Link Personnel Services, Inc., which included an Alternate Employer Endorsement. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Tractor Supply was entitled to the exclusive remedy defense, thereby barring McGowan's recovery.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyTemporary Employment AgencyEmployer-Employee RelationshipNegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAlternate Employer Endorsement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mission Insurance Co. v. Hill

This case concerns an appeal by Mission Insurance Co. from a post-answer default judgment granted in favor of Edwin Hill in a workers' compensation suit. Mission had failed to appear for both a pretrial hearing and the subsequent trial, leading to the default. The trial court denied Mission's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Mission did not conclusively establish that its attorney's failure to appear was not due to conscious indifference. Furthermore, the appellate court held that the trial court could appropriately consider violations of local court procedural rules when ruling on a motion for a new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionConscious IndifferenceAttorney Non-AppearanceProcedural RulesLocal Court RulesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewTrial Court Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon

Roy Solomon sued his former employer, Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc., alleging negligence in the collection of his urine specimen during a mandatory drug test, which resulted in a false positive for marijuana. This false result led to his termination and inability to secure subsequent employment as a truck driver. A jury found Mission negligent and awarded Solomon damages for medical care, lost earning capacity, mental anguish, and exemplary damages for malice. On appeal, Mission challenged several aspects, including the existence of a duty, proximate cause, and the recoverability of damages. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mission owed its employees a duty of reasonable care in drug test specimen collection and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of negligence, causation, and malice.

NegligenceDrug ScreeningFalse PositiveEmployment LawDamagesMental AnguishExemplary DamagesDepartment of TransportationSpecimen CollectionEmployer Duty
References
16
Case No. M2023-00249-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2024

Brian Coblentz v. Tractor Supply Company (Dissenting)

This dissenting opinion addresses a premises liability suit by Brian Coblentz against Tractor Supply Company. The central issue is whether Tractor Supply is Coblentz's statutory employer, which would preclude his tort claim due to workers' compensation's exclusive remedy provision. The majority concluded that Tractor Supply is a statutory employer, based on existing Tennessee caselaw. The dissenting judge argues that Tennessee caselaw has not adequately considered vendor-vendee relationships, like that between Tractor Supply and Coblentz's immediate employer, Stanley National (a product vendor), when determining statutory employer status. The dissent posits that applying the current framework to vendors improperly expands workers' compensation liability and reduces employee protections against negligence, advocating for further examination of this legal gap.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerPremises LiabilityVendor-Vendee RelationshipSubcontractor StatusExclusive RemedyDissenting OpinionContract LawTennessee LawTort Immunity
References
23
Case No. NUMBER 13-17-00102-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Mary Dreese

This interlocutory appeal addresses the denial of Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful death lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought by Mary Dreese, Dolores Perez, Jessica M. Perez, and Jennifer L. Perez (Plaintiffs and Intervenors) following the death of Francisco Perez, a Mission employee, in a truck accident. Mission, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance, had an Employee Health and Safety Plan containing an arbitration clause. The Plaintiffs and Intervenors argued this clause was unenforceable due to an illusory promise in the Plan's termination section, which they claimed gave Mission unilateral control. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, concluding that the challenge to the termination provision applied to the entire Plan, not just the arbitration clause, and therefore, under the Federal Arbitration Act and state contract law, the issue of enforceability should be decided by an arbitrator, not the courts. The case was remanded for the trial court to grant Mission's motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationEmployment DisputeWrongful DeathInterlocutory AppealContract LawIllusory PromiseFederal Arbitration ActEmployer LiabilityNon-subscriberTexas Law
References
6
Case No. 2-04-065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tarrant County Hospital District D/B/A John Peter Smith Hospital v. GE Automation Services, Inc., F/K/A GE Industrial Systems Solutions, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., F/K/A GE Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company

Appellant Tarrant County Hospital District appealed a summary judgment granted to Appellees GE Automation Services, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company. The suit stemmed from a 1996 transaction where Appellant alleged Appellees provided a defective bus duct system, leading to contract, warranty, products liability, and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 2.725) barred the contract and warranty claims, overriding governmental immunity. Furthermore, the court held that the economic loss rule precluded Appellant's tort claims, as the alleged damages constituted economic losses to the subject matter of the contract itself.

Summary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEconomic Loss RuleBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyProducts LiabilityNegligenceUniform Commercial CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 508 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