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. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. 14-17-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Robert Stevenson v. Waste Management of Texas, Inc. and Rigoberto Zelaya

In this personal-injury case, a worker, Robert Stevenson, hired by a temporary-employment supplier suffered serious injuries while performing tasks for Waste Management of Texas, Inc. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Stevenson’s negligence claim, citing the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision, asserting Stevenson was an employee of Waste Management. Stevenson appealed, arguing a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding his employment status. The appellate court found that the summary-judgment evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Stevenson was Waste Management’s “employee” under the statute. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Employment LawSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorNegligencePersonal InjuryTemporary EmploymentRight to ControlAppellate ReviewTexas LawMaster Agreement
References
17
Case No. 19-0282
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2021

Waste Management of Texas, Inc. and Rigoberto Zelaya v. Robert Stevenson

Justice Boyd issues a concurring opinion, agreeing with the Court's judgment that Robert Stevenson was an employee of Waste Management of Texas, Inc. under the Workers' Compensation Act, but disagrees with the Court's reasoning. He argues that the Court errs by creating a new test for employee status in workers' compensation cases, diverging from the well-established 'right-to-control' test applicable to both workers' compensation and vicarious liability. Boyd emphasizes that an express contract denying the right to control can be overcome by conclusive evidence of actual control if it demonstrates the contract was a sham or implicitly modified. He concludes that the summary-judgment record in this case compellingly shows Waste Management's persistent and comprehensive control over Stevenson's work, thus establishing an employer-employee relationship.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorRight to ControlDual EmploymentContractual InterpretationTexas Supreme CourtConcurring OpinionVicarious LiabilityStaffing Agency
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uptown Health Care Management, Inc.

Plaintiffs GEICO allege a scheme where defendants, including Uptown Health Care Management d/b/a East Tremont, Hisham Elzanaty, Alan Goldenberg, Dr. Hisham Ahmed, and Dr. Jadwiga Pawlowski, fraudulently billed GEICO for millions in services. GEICO contends East Tremont was ineligible for reimbursement under New York's no-fault insurance laws, operating without a legitimate medical director, violating its operating certificate, and paying kickbacks for referrals. The complaint raises six causes of action, including declaratory judgment, RICO violations (18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), 1962(d)), common law fraud, aiding and abetting fraud, and unjust enrichment. Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for Burford abstention and Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, arguing GEICO's claims would invalidate a DOH license and interfere with state oversight. Citing the similar Allstate Ins. v. Elzanaty action, the court denied defendants' motions, affirming that insurers can challenge fraudulent licensing and conduct under RICO and fraud claims, even if state authorities have approved the facility. The court concluded that such claims do not disrupt New York's regulatory scheme and need not be raised exclusively with the DOH or through an Article 78 proceeding.

Insurance FraudNo-Fault InsuranceRICO ActMedical LicensingHealthcare FraudAbstention DoctrineRule 12(b)(1) MotionRule 12(b)(6) MotionArticle 28 FacilitiesKickbacks
References
21
Case No. No. 07-19-00343-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2021

THF Housing Management Corp. v. Kathleen Gideon

THF Housing Management Corp. appealed a jury verdict in favor of its former employee, Kathleen Gideon, who sued for employment discrimination based on disability. Gideon, a property manager, was injured in a non-work-related accident and returned to work part-time with accommodations. She was terminated after informing her supervisor she would need more time for rehabilitation. The jury found in favor of Gideon, awarding her back pay and compensatory damages. THF challenged the sufficiency of evidence for Gideon being qualified for the job and for disability being a motivating factor in her termination, as well as the amount of compensatory damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's findings on liability but modified the judgment, capping compensatory damages at $50,000 as per the Texas Labor Code, based on evidence that THF had fewer than 101 employees. The final award was $168,556.71 in back pay and employment benefits, and $50,000 in compensatory damages, for a total of $218,556.71.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationTexas Labor LawCompensatory DamagesBack PayAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CapJury VerdictEmployee Termination
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1993

Olsen v. We'll Manage, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal by We'll Manage, Inc. from an order denying its cross motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiff Gary Olsen under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. We'll Manage, Inc. contended that Olsen was its special employee, providing evidence of direct supervision, work assignments, the right to fire him, and payment signed by its personnel, despite his wages being drawn from a general employer's account. The court found this established a special employment relationship. As Olsen received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, he is statutorily barred from maintaining an action against the special employer. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted We'll Manage, Inc.'s cross motion, and dismissed the complaint against the appellant.

Special EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarSummary JudgmentLabor LawDirect SupervisionControlAffidavitDeposition TestimonyGeneral EmployerAppellate Reversal
References
6
Case No. CA 12-01329
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2013

MULLIN, CARL D. v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, LLC

Carl D. Mullin, an employee of Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., sustained injuries after falling from a ladder at a Waste Management of New York, LLC facility. Mullin initiated an action against Waste Management, which subsequently filed a third-party claim against Riccelli for breach of contract. Waste Management alleged that Riccelli failed to name it as an additional insured on various required insurance policies, including workers' compensation, commercial general liability, and automobile liability. The Supreme Court granted Waste Management's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order, also upholding the denial of Riccelli's motion to introduce new evidence, deeming it untimely and unlikely to alter the determination.

Breach of ContractInsurance CoverageAdditional Insured ClauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmationThird-Party LitigationPersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentLadder FallContractual Indemnity
References
2
Case No. 03-17-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2018

Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.// State Office of Risk Management v. State Office of Risk Management// Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals stemming from a dispute over the appropriate reimbursement for medical services provided by Vista Medical Center Hospital and its affiliates to injured employees covered by the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) under Texas workers’ compensation statutes. The district court had affirmed 23 administrative orders that required SORM to make additional payments to Vista, a decision which SORM challenged on appeal citing insufficient evidence. Vista, in turn, cross-appealed the district court's denial of prejudgment interest. The appellate court found substantial evidence supported the administrative law judges' conclusion that SORM's original reimbursement model was unfair and unreasonable, and that Vista's proposed methodology was valid. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified it to include the prejudgment interest that Vista was statutorily entitled to.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrejudgment InterestTexas LawHealthcare ProvidersInsurance DisputesFee Guidelines
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2009

Franco v. Kaled Management Corp.

The defendant Kaled Management Corp. d/b/a Wisteria Tower Condominium appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. Kaled argued that the plaintiff's claims were precluded by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, on the basis that the plaintiff was its special employee. The court outlined the legal framework for determining a special employment relationship, emphasizing factors like control over the employee's work, wage payment, equipment furnishing, and the right to discharge. The appellate court found that Kaled failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was its special employee. The submitted affidavit did not eliminate all material issues of fact regarding whether Wisteria Tower Condominium had relinquished control over hiring. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the denial of Kaled's motion for summary judgment.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentSummary JudgmentExclusivity ProvisionAppellate ReviewLabor LawEmployer LiabilityControl Test
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 11,211 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