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. 03-11-00009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation And the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Brian Fanette

The appellants, Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, filed a motion requesting the dismissal of their appeal. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted this motion and consequently dismissed the appeal. This decision was made in the case against Appellee Brian Fanette.

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation DivisionAppeal DismissalAppellant MotionJudicial DistrictTravis CountyMemorandum OpinionAdministrative AgencyState GovernmentAppellate Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04288
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2021

Taylor v. Piatkowski Riteway Meats, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael A. Taylor, an employee of Durham Staffing, Inc., was assigned to work at Piatkowski Riteway Meats, Inc. and was injured there. He commenced an action against Piatkowski Riteway Meats, Inc., which moved for summary judgment, asserting that Taylor was a special employee and his claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. However, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the order, finding that the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that it exercised complete control over the plaintiff's work, thus raising a triable issue of fact regarding the special employee doctrine. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' CompensationSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate DivisionEmployer ControlStaffing Agency LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTriable Issue of FactComplaint ReinstatementLabor Law Litigation
References
8
Case No. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Case No. 07-12-00328-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2014

Janet Bontke, Individually and as Guardian of the Estate and Person of Nolan Bontke, a Ward v. Cargill Meat Logistics Solution, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation and Tulia Feed Lot, Inc.

Janet Bontke, individually and as guardian of Nolan Bontke, appealed a trial court judgment denying recovery against Cargill Meat Logistics Solution, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, and Tulia Feed Lot, Inc. Nolan Bontke, an independent contractor, sustained injuries while loading a steer at Tulia Feed Lot when he was struck by an agitated animal. The appeal raised issues concerning references to insurance, the exclusion of a rebuttal expert witness, the classification of cattle handling as inherently dangerous, and the factual sufficiency of the jury's negligence findings. The appellate court overruled all of Bontke's issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

negligenceindependent contractorcattle handlinginherently dangerous activityevidence admissionexpert witness exclusionfactual sufficiencyappealTexaspersonal injury
References
26
Case No. 03-10-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation Frank S. Denton v. Reema Khan, D/B/A Salon Rupa - Shapes Brow Bar

This appeal concerns district court orders that partially denied a plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellants, governmental defendants including the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its executive director and members, faced claims from appellee Reema Khan, who operates eyebrow threading businesses. Khan was penalized for practicing cosmetology without a license and challenged this, arguing eyebrow threading is not within the statutory scope of cosmetology. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for Khan's declaratory claims, dismissing them as redundant to her Administrative Procedures Act (APA) judicial review claim. However, the court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion given Khan's viable APA claim and probable right to recovery against the Department's regulation of eyebrow threading.

Cosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgments ActPlea to JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionStatutory InterpretationProfessional LicensingGovernmental AuthorityUltra Vires Act
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State, Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Reynolds-Land, Inc.

This is a summary judgment case where the State Department of Highways and Public Transportation (Department) sought indemnity from Reynolds-Land, Inc. (Reynolds-Land) based on a written agreement. An employee of Reynolds-Land, Grover Hicks, was injured and received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA). Hicks then sued the Department for negligence, and TEIA intervened for subrogation. The Department settled with Hicks and TEIA, paying $25,000 to TEIA for its subrogation interest. The Department then filed a third-party action against Reynolds-Land for indemnity for this $25,000 payment. Reynolds-Land moved for summary judgment, arguing the indemnity agreement only covered its own negligence and not the Department's, and that the 'express negligence doctrine' from Ethyl Corp. v. Daniel Const. Co. was not met. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment against the Department, ruling that the indemnity clause lacked the specificity required by the express negligence doctrine to cover the Department's own alleged negligence.

Indemnity AgreementSummary JudgmentExpress Negligence DoctrineWorkers' CompensationSubrogationContractual InterpretationThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v. New York State Department of State

Petitioners, identified as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, appealed a judgment that dismissed their challenge to a modification by respondents, the Secretary of State, Department of Environmental Conservation, and Department of State. The modification extended a statutorily protected environmental habitat in the Hudson River, now called 'Hudson Highlands,' impacting the area near Indian Point. Petitioners argued that the modification lacked a rational scientific basis, constituted formal rulemaking without proper procedure, and that the denial of their discovery requests was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to the agencies' interpretation of their regulations and finding the modification rational, not formal rulemaking, and the discovery denial justified.

Environmental ProtectionHabitat ModificationAgency DeferenceCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentRegulatory InterpretationScientific EvidenceFormal RulemakingAdministrative ProcedureDiscovery Denial
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harrison v. State Highway Department of Texas

Johnny H. Harrison filed a suit seeking workmen's compensation benefits under Article 6674s, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Civ.St., alleging injury while employed by the State Highway Department in Canton, Texas. The trial court granted summary judgment to the State Highway Department, ruling that Harrison was not an employee at the time of his injury. Harrison appealed, contending that the court erred in its determination of his employment status and the applicability of physical examination requirements. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Harrison did not meet the statutory definition of an 'employee' as his name did not appear on the State Highway Department's official payroll, and he was found to be an employee of a subcontractor, R. S. Peel, rather than the department itself.

Workmen's CompensationEmployee StatusSubcontractorSummary JudgmentTexas LawState Highway DepartmentStatutory InterpretationPayroll RequirementsPhysical ExaminationAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. 03-18-00153-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Texas Department of Transportation v. Albert Lara, Jr.

Albert Lara, Jr. sued the Texas Department of Transportation (Department) for employment termination after taking extended leave to recover from surgery, alleging violations of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) for failure to provide reasonable accommodation and retaliation. The Department filed a combined motion for summary judgment and plea to the jurisdiction, which the district court denied. On appeal, the Court affirmed the district court's denial regarding the discrimination claim, finding genuine issues of material fact concerning Lara's qualification for accommodation and the Department's alleged undue hardship. However, the Court reversed the district court's denial of the plea concerning Lara's retaliation claim, concluding that Lara failed to establish a causal connection between any protected activity and his termination, thus failing to overcome the Department's immunity.

Employment LawDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliation ClaimTexas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Undue Hardship DefenseSummary Judgment ReviewPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureCausation Element
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 5,483 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