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

Allen v. Delta Materials Handling, Inc.

Felton Allen and Barbara Allen sued Delta Materials Handling, Inc. for injuries Mr. Allen sustained from a defective forklift leased by Delta to his employer, The Regina Company. The jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, which Delta appealed. The core issue on appeal was whether a defendant in a negligence action could assert comparative negligence of the plaintiff's employer or co-employee as an affirmative defense, even if the employer was immune under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act. Citing Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. and McIntyre v. Balentine, the court determined that fault could only be attributed to parties against whom the plaintiff has a cause of action, thus excluding the employer in this context. The court also affirmed the trial court's denial of a mistrial motion regarding an improper statement made by plaintiff's counsel during closing arguments, finding no prejudice since the statement was interrupted.

Comparative NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ActForklift InjuryEmployer LiabilityNonparty FaultTort ActionAffirmative DefenseTrial Court JudgmentAppealMistrial
References
2
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. 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. 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. ADJ2661083 (AHM 0097587) ADJ2316310 (AHM 0088976)
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

GENEEN RODRIGUEZ vs. STATEK CORPORATION, ACE USA

This case involves defendant Statek Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an award granting applicant Geneen Rodriguez a spinal cord stimulator. The Administrative Law Judge found the utilization review (UR) determination materially defective due to communication issues and the reviewer's specialty. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and found the UR determination was not materially defective. The Board concluded that any alleged defects were not significant enough to bypass the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process.

Utilization ReviewSpinal Cord StimulatorMaterially DefectiveIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Medical NecessityCompetency of ReviewerInternal MedicineTimely CommunicationDubon v. World Restoration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campbell v. Interstate Materials Corporation

The claimant, an operating manager for Interstate Materials Corporation, suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knees in August 2006 and a second lower back injury in April 2008. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially classified the claimant with a permanent total disability and struck the independent medical examiner's report. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the IME report improperly precluded due to the examiner's hospitalization and reclassified the claimant with a permanent partial disability, equally apportioned between the two accidents. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in considering the IME report and that substantial evidence supported both the permanent partial disability classification and the equal apportionment of the disability.

Permanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardApportionment of DisabilityMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Cross-Examination RightsAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peckham v. Peckham Materials Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Peckham Materials Corporation, in a wrongful death action. The plaintiff's decedent, John S. Peckham, was killed in a helicopter crash while a passenger in a company-owned helicopter. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, striking the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The Appellate Division reversed the order, holding that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of compensation benefits. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court with instructions to defer the motion's disposition until the Workers' Compensation Board makes a final determination regarding the plaintiff's eligibility for benefits.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHelicopter AccidentEmployer LiabilityJudicial DeferenceRemittalEstate Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. v. Albemarle Corp.

This case involves an appeal by MEMC Electronic Materials and MEMC Pasadena (collectively MEMC) challenging a trial court's order. The order granted partial summary judgment to Albemarle Corporation and denied MEMC's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Albemarle sought indemnification from MEMC for payments made to Ethyl Corporation, which had indemnified Ethyl for claims arising from a plant fire. MEMC argued that their Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) with Albemarle did not obligate them to indemnify Albemarle for this specific liability, citing clauses concerning assumed obligations, non-disclosure of the Ethyl-Albemarle indemnity agreement, and the timing of the liability's origin. The court analyzed Sections 3.4, 4.16, and 7.4 of the APA, ultimately concluding that MEMC had not assumed the obligation for the Ethyl-Albemarle indemnity agreement. It found that the payment made by Albemarle to Ethyl arose from a prior contractual relationship, not from operations of the plant on or after the closing date of the APA between MEMC and Albemarle. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of MEMC.

Contract InterpretationIndemnification AgreementAsset Purchase AgreementSummary JudgmentTexas LawVirginia LawCorporate LiabilityPre-existing ContractsPost-closing OperationsAffiliate Agreements
References
16
Case No. 01-08-00770-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 2010

MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., and MEMC Pasadena, Inc. v. Albemarle Corporation, Lexington Insurance Company, and Travelers Property Casualty Group

This appeal concerns whether a party to an indemnification agreement can obtain indemnification for a dispute regarding the scope and meaning of the indemnification agreement, specifically, whether the agreement provides for indemnification of another matter. Appellants MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc. and MEMC Pasadena, Inc. appealed the trial court’s rendition of summary judgment in favor of appellees Albemarle Corporation, Lexington Insurance Company, and Travelers Property Casualty Group. MEMC sought attorney's fees and expenses from Albemarle for Albemarle’s prosecution of an Excluded Obligation, arguing that the trial court erred by denying MEMC’s motion for summary judgment and granting Albemarle’s motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Asset Purchase Agreement did not provide for indemnification of “good faith” claims between MEMC and Albemarle concerning the scope and meaning of the agreement, and therefore, MEMC was not entitled to attorney’s fees.

Indemnification AgreementAttorney's FeesBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentExcluded ObligationAsset Purchase AgreementContract InterpretationAppellate ReviewGood Faith DisputeTexas Law
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 3,224 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