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. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. 01-07-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

in Re Bison Building Materials, Ltd.

Bison Building Materials, Ltd., a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, established an employee injury plan with an arbitration clause. Employee Tracy Sambrano was injured, received benefits, but then sued Bison for negligence, despite signing a post-injury waiver. The trial court denied Bison's motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the court held that Sambrano had accepted the arbitration terms by continued employment and that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws that would prevent enforcement. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to compel arbitration, finding Bison had not waived its right, and dismissed Sambrano's interlocutory appeal.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas General Arbitration Act (TGAA)Workers' Compensation NonsubscriberEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanERISA PreemptionMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealWaiver of ArbitrationContract Defenses
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. 13-08-00589-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2010

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa and Industrial Risk Insurers v. John Zink Company Fisher Controls Company, Inc. Fisher Controls International, Inc. Fisher Controls Installation and Service Company And Valtek, Inc.

This litigation, stemming from refinery explosions and fires in the 1980s, involved an appeal by National Union Fire Insurance Company and Industrial Risk Insurers (the Insurers) against various contractors (the Contractors). The Insurers, as subrogees of Valero Energy Corporation, sought damages for product liability, negligence, breach of contract, and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations. The core legal dispute centered on whether the Contractors qualified as 'subcontractors' under a master contract between Valero and M.W. Kellogg Construction Company, which contained extensive waiver and release provisions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's final summary judgment, concluding that the Contractors were indeed subcontractors, the express negligence doctrine did not apply to the post-act release, and Valero had validly waived its DTPA claims, thereby binding its subrogees.

Contractual WaiversSubrogation RightsSummary Judgment AppealExpress Negligence RuleDeceptive Trade Practices ActParol Evidence Rule ApplicationJudicial AdmissionsConstruction ContractsInsurance LitigationThird-Party Beneficiary
References
31
Case No. 08-10-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

State v. Cemex Construction Materials South, LLC

The State of Texas sued Cemex Construction Materials South, L.L.C. for conversion, breach of contract, and trespass to try title, asserting ownership of valuable building materials on four parcels of public school lands in El Paso County. The State claimed these mineral rights were reserved under the 1895 Land Sales and Mining Acts during original sales in 1900, 1906, and 1912. The trial court denied the State's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Cemex's motion. On appeal, the court reviewed the rulings de novo and found that the State unequivocally reserved mineral rights. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, granted the State's motion for partial summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mineral RightsPublic School LandsSummary JudgmentState of TexasConversion ClaimBreach of ContractMining Act of 1895Land Sales Act of 1895Real Property LawStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Fulton Sylphon Division, Robertshaw Controls Co.

Willie J. Johnson, a black male, filed a Title VII lawsuit against his employer, Fulton Sylphon Division of Robertshaw Controls Company, alleging racial discrimination regarding a denied transfer to the Numerical Control Department and subsequent retaliatory discharge. Johnson claimed he was denied promotion due to his race and fired in retaliation for his protected activities. The defendant argued that Johnson's excessive absenteeism, poor work performance, and lack of qualifications were legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decisions. The court found that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, concluding he was not qualified for the transfer due to his consistent poor work record. Furthermore, his discharge was found to be a result of his ongoing absenteeism and uncooperative attitude, not retaliation. The court ruled in favor of the defendant.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIRetaliatory DischargeAbsenteeismPoor Work PerformancePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas TestPretextStatistical Evidence
References
18
Case No. 04-15-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2015

Rhino Contractors, LLC v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LP

Rhino Contractors, LLC, appeals a trial court's default judgment in favor of Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. Vulcan sued Rhino for breach of contract or on a sworn account, alleging Rhino failed to pay $454,846.76 for materials supplied for its construction business, plus 18% interest and attorney's fees. The default judgment included these amounts along with prejudgment interest and court costs. Rhino argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for new trial because it never received proper notice of the lawsuit, thus failing to file an answer. Rhino also asserts it has a meritorious defense, including claims of double billing and improper credits on invoices from Vulcan, and that granting a new trial would not prejudice Vulcan. Furthermore, Rhino contends the damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees awarded were unliquidated and not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence, as Vulcan's affidavit lacked an itemized account and its attorney's fee affidavit did not meet required evidentiary standards.

Default JudgmentBreach of ContractSworn AccountMotion for New TrialService of ProcessCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseDamagesPrejudgment InterestAttorney's Fees
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibson v. Crucible Materials Corp.

The case concerns a plaintiff's allegations of sex discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation against her employer, Crucible Materials Corporation, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York Human Rights Law. The plaintiff claimed various incidents of sexual harassment by co-workers and a supervisor, and retaliatory actions. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court found insufficient evidence to impute co-worker conduct to the employer and determined that the employer took prompt corrective action regarding supervisor misconduct. Furthermore, the Court found no causal connection between the plaintiff's complaints and the alleged adverse actions. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety, and the case was closed.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawCo-worker HarassmentSupervisor HarassmentAffirmative Defense
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. McPhee

The Tennessee Supreme Court reviewed a case involving sexual harassment discrimination and retaliation claims filed by employee Tammie C. Allen against her employer (Middle Tennessee State University, Tennessee Board of Regents, State of Tennessee) and supervisor (Dr. Sidney McPhee) under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. The Court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the employer on the discrimination claim, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the employer's Faragher/Ellerth defense. However, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the supervisor on the discrimination claim, citing a lack of evidence that he encouraged discrimination or prevented corrective action. For the retaliation claims, the Court adopted new standards for materially adverse actions. It affirmed summary judgment for the employer on retaliation, concluding Allen failed to prove the employer's non-discriminatory reason for her transfer was pretextual. Finally, summary judgment was affirmed for the supervisor on retaliation, as his public statements and internal allegations were not deemed materially adverse. The case was partially affirmed, partially reversed, and remanded for further proceedings regarding the discrimination claim against the employer.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationDiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTennessee Human Rights ActTHRAFaragher/Ellerth DefenseSummary JudgmentVicarious LiabilitySupervisor Liability
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'NEILL v. Startex Petroleum, Inc.

Dennis O’Neill sued Stacy Oliver, Startex Petroleum Corporation, and Theodore LaTouf d/b/a “Ted’s Quikie Pickie” for injuries sustained during an armed robbery at his workplace, a gasoline station. The trial court granted summary judgment for Oliver and Startex, which O’Neill appealed. O’Neill argued that Startex’s extensive contractual control over the business operations and premises created a genuine issue of material fact regarding a master-servant relationship or sufficient control to impose a duty of reasonable care, making summary judgment inappropriate. The appellate court examined the sublease agreement, highlighting Startex’s retention of control over product sales, pricing, operating hours, and equipment, which indicated potential liability. Citing prior Texas Supreme Court cases, the court concluded that material fact issues existed concerning Startex’s right to control, thereby reversing the summary judgment and remanding the cause for trial on the merits.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentMaster-Servant RelationshipRight of ControlEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryArmed RobberyContract InterpretationDuty of Care
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 4,625 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