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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2013

Richard Liput v. Bobby Grinder

Richard Liput was involved in an automobile accident with Bobby Grinder. Grinder died, and Liput settled with Grinder's insurer. Liput then sued his Uninsured Motorist carrier, State Auto Mutual Insurance Company, for damages. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Uninsured Motorist carrier because Liput failed to properly and timely serve Grinder or his estate, a requirement to impose liability on the uninsured motorist carrier. Liput appealed, arguing issues related to service, the Uninsured Motorist Statute, and waiver of defenses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the direct action procedure against the uninsured motorist carrier was not triggered because the summons for Grinder was not returned "not to be found," and Liput could not rely on waiver of defenses as he knew Grinder was not served.

Summary JudgmentUninsured Motorist CoverageService of ProcessStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefensesWaiverEquitable EstoppelSurvival StatutePersonal RepresentativeAppellate Review
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Life & Accident Co. v. Wade

This case involves an appeal by the Home Life & Accident Company from an award of the Industrial Accident Board in favor of C. Wade. Wade, an an employee of A. C. MacParlane, sustained injuries while loading steel cranes onto a barge in the navigable Sabine River. The central legal question was whether Wade's maritime injury fell under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law or the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts. The trial court initially awarded compensation to Wade under state law. However, the appellate court, citing various U.S. Supreme Court precedents and an Attorney General's opinion, concluded that maritime injuries are subject to federal admiralty law, thus precluding state workers' compensation jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the appellate court ruled in favor of the Home Life & Accident Company.

Admiralty lawMaritime jurisdictionWorkers' compensationFederal preemptionState lawInjury at workNavigable watersLongshoremanSabine RiverEmployer liability
References
5
Case No. NO. 01-16-00724-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2018

LMMM Houston 41, Ltd., LMMM Houston 41, Ltd, Dba La Michoacana Meat Market 41 v. Jesus Santibanez

This appeal arises from a premises liability suit where Jesus Santibanez slipped and fell on grease at La Michoacana Meat Market. A jury found La Michoacana Meat Market negligent, awarding Santibanez damages, including $120,000 for future medical expenses. La Michoacana Meat Market appealed, challenging jury instructions and the sufficiency of evidence, while Santibanez cross-appealed the reduction of his future medical expenses via JNOV. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions and upholding the JNOV due to insufficient evidence to support the jury's original $120,000 award for future medical expenses.

Premises LiabilitySlip and FallPersonal InjuryJury InstructionsLegal SufficiencyFuture Medical ExpensesJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictInviteeOrdinary CareConcealed Danger
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keefe v. General Accident Insurance

Plaintiff Violet O'Keefe initiated an action against General Accident Insurance Company, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation based on age and sex, violating Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. O'Keefe claimed a discriminatory work environment and unlawful termination following her refusal of a proposed job transfer. The defendant argued O'Keefe's performance was poor and the transfer was a lateral move. The District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the federal discrimination and retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether General Accident's reasons for termination were pretextual. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law claims, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
19
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. 13-21-00361-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Accident Fund General Insurance Company v. Rodrigo Mendiola

Rodrigo Mendiola, a truck driver, suffered severe burns in an accident, leading to an above-the-knee amputation and significant injury to his left hand. His employer's workers' compensation insurer, Accident Fund General Insurance Company, disputed his claim for lifetime income benefits based on the total loss of use of his left hand. The trial court, applying the Travelers Insurance Co. v. Seabolt standard, found sufficient evidence that Mendiola's hand lacked substantial utility, entitling him to benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the application of the Seabolt standard and concluding the evidence factually supported the finding of total loss of use.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsTotal Loss of UseBurn InjuriesHand InjuryAmputationMedical EvidenceFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewStare Decisis
References
29
Case No. 01-10-00867-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2011

Amigos Meat Distributors, L.P. v. Mario Elizondo

Amigos Meat Distributors, L.P. appealed a judgment in favor of its employee, Mario Elizondo, who sustained an injury while working as a meat cutter. The injury occurred when Elizondo, wearing gloves, used a Biro saw to cut beef feet, and his glove became caught in the blade. Amigos, a worker's compensation insurance non-subscriber, challenged the trial court's finding of negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Amigos had a duty to warn Elizondo of the danger of wearing gloves while operating the saw, a danger that Amigos was aware of through the saw's manual but failed to communicate to Elizondo. The court also found that Amigos breached its duty to provide a safe method and proper training, even though a pusher tool was available, as there was evidence that cutting beef feet with the saw, even with the tool, might be unsafe.

NegligenceEmployer DutyWorker's Compensation Non-SubscriberWorkplace InjurySafety WarningEmployee TrainingMeat Cutting SawPersonal Protective EquipmentCausationTexas Law
References
15
Case No. W2008-01771-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2011

Shelby County Health Care Corporation, d/b/a Regional Medical Center v. John Baumgartner, Elizabeth Baumgartner, a/k/a Daray Baumgartner, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, and Hartford Accident and Indemnity

This appeal concerns the impairment of a hospital lien by Shelby County Health Care Corporation (The MED) against John Baumgartner and his insurance providers, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and Hartford Accident and Indemnity. Mr. Baumgartner received extensive medical treatment at The MED following an automobile accident, incurring over $500,000 in expenses, for which The MED filed a hospital lien. Subsequently, Nationwide and Hartford settled with the Baumgartners, paying out policy limits of $25,000 and $100,000 respectively, without remitting any funds to The MED. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgment, finding impairment of the lien and awarding damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of lien impairment but reversed the damage awards, concluding that The MED's recovery is limited to one-third of the amounts the insurers paid to the Baumgartners, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this interpretation.

Hospital Lien ActInsurance LawAutomobile AccidentSubrogationMade-Whole DoctrineStatutory InterpretationDamages for ImpairmentConstructive NoticeMedical ExpensesSettlement Agreements
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 3,750 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