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. 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
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. 05-11-00912-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2013

Compass Bank v. Manchester Platinum Management, Inc.

This case is an appeal from a summary judgment in a deficiency action. Compass Bank, the appellant, challenged the trial court's decision to deny its motion for summary judgment and grant the appellees' motion, which applied a fair market value offset against the deficiency owed. Compass Bank argued that Manchester Platinum Management, Inc., Todd Allan deVeilleneuve, and Allan R. deVeilleneuve had contractually waived their right to such an offset. The appellate court agreed, concluding that the waiver language in both the deed of trust and the guaranty agreements was sufficient to waive the appellees' rights under Texas Property Code section 51.003. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, rendered judgment in favor of Compass Bank for the principal deficiency, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding attorney's fees and interest calculation.

Summary Judgment AppealDeficiency ActionContractual WaiverFair Market Value OffsetGuaranty AgreementsDeed of TrustTexas Property CodeNonjudicial ForeclosurePromissory NoteAppellate Procedure
References
11
Case No. 15-25-00092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2025

Bright Health Management, Inc. v. Texas Department of Insurance and Cantilo & Bennett, L.L.P., Special Deputy Receiver of Bright Healthcare Insurance Company of Texas

This case involves an appeal by Bright Health Management, Inc. (BHM) against Bright Health Insurance Company of Texas (BHICOT), which is currently in receivership. The appeal challenges an order from the 455th Judicial District Court in Travis County, Texas. The Special Deputy Receiver (SDR) for BHICOT moved to compel BHM, a non-party to the liquidation, to produce all BHICOT-related records, specifically electronically stored information (ESI) from BHM's integrated email system. BHM requested the implementation of ESI protocols to protect its privacy, privileged, and confidential information related to its other clients, and sought reimbursement for the costs of production, citing its Management Services Agreement (MSA) with BHICOT and Texas law governing non-party discovery. The District Court, adopting the Special Master's recommendation, denied BHM's request for ESI protocols and ordered BHM to bear all production costs, asserting that BHM created the commingled system for its own economic benefit. BHM argues that this ruling disregards established Texas ESI jurisprudence and its contractual and statutory rights to cost reimbursement, and seeks reversal of the District Court's order.

Insurance ReceivershipElectronic DiscoveryESI ProtocolsNon-Party DiscoveryCost ReimbursementAffiliate TransactionsManagement Services AgreementTexas Insurance LawConfidentialityPrivilege Protection
References
20
Case No. 08-00-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

SCM Management, Inc./Manuela Ortiz v. Ortiz, Manuela/SCM Management, Inc.

Manuela Ortiz, a housekeeper, sued SCM Management, Inc. for wrongful discharge under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, alleging retaliation for her intent to file a worker's compensation claim due to worsening hand pain. A jury found in favor of Ortiz, awarding damages for lost wages and mental anguish, but the trial court excluded exemplary damages. SCM appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish. Ortiz cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish, but agreed that there was insufficient evidence for exemplary damages.

Worker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawMental AnguishExemplary DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceLost WagesMitigation of DamagesTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. A-171,169
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Starflite Management Group, Inc.

Relator, StarFlite Management Group, Inc. d/b/a StarFlite Aviation, filed a petition for writ of mandamus, alleging the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the production of certain financial documents in a discovery dispute with real party-in-interest Mary Trahan. The underlying lawsuit arose from a plane crash that killed Ms. Trahan's husband, where StarFlite was alleged to be a non-subscriber under Texas Workers' Compensation laws. StarFlite contended the discovery order, which compelled the production of extensive financial records from 2000 to present, was overbroad, irrelevant, harassing, and violated privacy rights. The appellate court noted that it lacked Ms. Trahan's re-pleaded cause of action and that new discovery materials were introduced after the trial court's oral ruling, hindering its full analysis. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief, directing the trial court to modify its order to limit the production of corporate financial and business documents to those explicitly referring to specific named defendants (John Beeson, David Trigg, Jerri Trigg, Jeffrey Ware, Karla Ware, and/or CEMR, Inc.) for the period from January 1, 2000, to the present.

MandamusDiscoveryAbuse of DiscretionFinancial DocumentsCorporate VeilAlter EgoOverbroad DiscoveryIrrelevant DiscoveryWorkers' CompensationTexas Law
References
12
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
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00302 [135 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2016

Domaszowec v. Residential Management Group LLC

Plaintiff Tracy Domaszowec's decedent died from a fall while cleaning a window on the 13th floor of an apartment building. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Residential Management Group LLC and 40 Fifth Avenue Corporation (40 Fifth defendants), the building owner and manager. The court found the decedent was engaged in "commercial window washing," thereby making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 202 against Veronica Bulgari and Stephen Haimo due to lack of exclusive control, and common-law negligence claims against T&L Contracting of N.Y., Inc. and Greenpoint Woodworking Inc. due to the lack of an exception to the contractual obligation rule. Issues of fact precluded summary judgment on negligence claims against Panorama Windows, Ltd., and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable to certain defendants.

Window cleaner fatalityScaffold LawSummary judgment appealAppellate Division First DepartmentCommercial vs. routine window washingLabor Law applicabilityContractual tort liabilityRes ipsa loquitur in negligencePunitive damages dismissalExpert witness evidence
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 9,701 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