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. 14-22-00828-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2024

BDFI, LLC v. Boxer Property Management Corporation

BDFI, LLC appealed a post-answer default judgment in favor of Boxer Property Management Corporation. BDFI argued that the trial court abused its discretion by denying its motions for continuance and its motion for new trial, and by dismissing the jury panel to conduct a bench trial. The appeals court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying continuances due to insufficient cause and unpreserved arguments. Additionally, BDFI failed to set up a meritorious defense for the motion for new trial, and waived its right to a jury trial by not appearing for trial.

Post-answer default judgmentMotion for continuanceMotion for new trialJury trial waiverBreach of contractTrial court discretionAppellate reviewCivil procedureMeritorious defenseTexas law
References
26
Case No. 02-22-00336-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2024

Boxer Property Management Corporation v. Teresa R. Dehnel

Teresa R. Dehnel sued Boxer Property Management Corporation for age and sex discrimination and retaliation after her termination. A jury found retaliation and awarded back pay, noneconomic, and exemplary damages. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's findings on retaliation and noneconomic damages. However, it reversed the exemplary damages due to a non-unanimous verdict and remanded the attorney's fees for recalculation.

RetaliationEmployment LawDiscriminationWrongful TerminationJury VerdictBack PayExemplary DamagesAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewCausation
References
9
Case No. 14-09-00579-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2009

in Re Boxer Property Management Corporation and 9343 North Loop, L.P.

Boxer Property Management Corporation and 9343 North Loop, L.P. (Relators) sought a writ of mandamus to vacate a trial court order compelling the deposition of their corporate representative. The Relators contended that the deposition would improperly delve into attorney work product concerning their discovery responses to the Wells plaintiffs. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals found that the approved deposition questions were designed to investigate the methods used by counsel in searching for documents, which constitutes privileged attorney work product. Lacking concrete evidence of discovery abuse, the court determined the trial court abused its discretion. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior order.

Discovery DisputeAttorney Work ProductPrivilegeMandamusCorporate RepresentativeDepositionTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionTexas Civil Procedure
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fisher v. SDAM Management, Inc.

Claimant, a taxicab driver, sought workers' compensation benefits after an accident. SDAM Management, Inc. disputed the claim, denying an employer-employee relationship. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge, and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board, found that such a relationship existed between the claimant, SDAM, and its principal John Lewis, citing Lewis's role in licensing and SDAM's in dispatching. SDAM and its carrier appealed these decisions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board's factual determination of an employer-employee relationship should not be disturbed.

Employer-employee relationshipTaxicab driverSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewAgency controlWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeFactual determinationPrincipal liabilityBusiness entityAppeal affirmed
References
2
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. 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
Nov 24, 1987

Langdon v. WEN Management Co.

The plaintiff, widow of Joseph Langdon, appealed an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing her complaint for personal injuries. Joseph Langdon died 17 days after sustaining severe head injuries from a fall at his workplace, Astoria Gardens. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially found Elizabeth and Gregory Associates to be the decedent's employer, but later determined that a 'general/special' employment relationship existed between WEN Management Company and Associates, making both equally liable for benefits. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the Board's determination of the decedent’s employer had collateral estoppel effect. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to bar the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendants, as the issue of the decedent’s employer was necessarily decided by the Board after the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to contest it.

Collateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer LiabilityGeneral/Special EmploymentPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewAdministrative Agency Determination
References
4
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 4,931 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