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. 13-03-099-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Luciano Islas v. Central Ready Mix Concrete

Luciano Islas sued Central Ready Mix Concrete Company for injuries suffered while exiting a cement truck drum. The jury found Central Ready Mix 20% negligent and awarded Islas $290,000, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Central Ready Mix was negligent and its negligence was a proximate cause of Islas's injuries, given its knowledge of past accidents and failure to ensure safety procedures for a dangerous outsourced activity. The court reinstated the jury's verdict, holding Central Ready Mix 20% liable.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorForeseeabilityJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSafety ProceduresCement Truck
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transit-mix Concrete Corp. v. Local Union No. 282, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America

Transit-Mix Concrete Corporation and Local Union No. 282, parties to collective bargaining agreements, had a dispute regarding seniority rights of former Colonial Sand and Stone Co. Inc. drivers after Transit-Mix acquired Colonial's assets. An arbitrator's 1979 award on employee seniority was later found by the NLRB and Second Circuit to have been improperly communicated by Local 282, leading to a breach of its duty of fair representation. Consequently, Local 282 was ordered to request reopening the arbitration to provide notice and a retroactive grace period for affected employees. Transit-Mix sought to stay this arbitration, arguing against reopening a final award and raising procedural defenses like statute of limitations and laches. The court, emphasizing the broad arbitration clause in their agreements, denied Transit-Mix's petition to stay and granted Local 282's cross-petition to compel arbitration, deferring the merits and procedural questions to the arbitrator.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority DisputeDuty of Fair RepresentationNLRB OrderLabor-Management DisputesArbitration EnforcementJudicial Review of ArbitrationFederal Labor LawUnion Liability
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fitzgerald v. Alleghany Corp.

Plaintiff Robert Fitzgerald sued his employer, Chicago Title Insurance Co., alleging disability discrimination under New York law after he was discharged. Fitzgerald claimed his termination, occurring during a company consolidation and layoffs, was due to the employer learning he was seeing a psychiatrist for depression. Chicago Title moved for summary judgment, arguing the alleged disability was not protected and Fitzgerald failed to present evidence of discriminatory animus. The court reviewed Fitzgerald's performance and the communication of his psychiatric care to company personnel, finding no direct link to the termination decision-makers. The court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, concluding that Fitzgerald failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding discriminatory motivation under either pretext or mixed-motive analysis.

Disability DiscriminationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentNew York Human Rights LawPretext DiscriminationMixed Motive AnalysisMental ImpairmentDepressionEmployer LiabilityEmployment Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Proctor & Gamble Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff Charles Reed sued Proctor and Gamble Manufacturing Company, alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment. Reed claimed he was denied promotion opportunities and coaching for a Technician Level 4 position due to his race, and that his complaints led to adverse actions. The Court granted summary judgment to the Defendant on Reed's claims of single-motive race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment, finding insufficient evidence for a prima facie case in several areas. The Court found that the alleged denial of coaching was not an adverse employment action and Reed did not fully meet T4 qualifications. However, the Court ordered supplemental briefing on Reed's remaining claim for failure to promote under a mixed-motive analysis.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITennessee Human Rights ActCircumstantial EvidenceMixed-Motive
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Central Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas

Luciano Islas, an employee of independent contractor Eugene Taylor, sustained severe injuries while cleaning a concrete truck drum for Central Ready Mix Concrete Company, which lacked workers' compensation insurance. A jury initially found all parties partially at fault, but the trial court subsequently granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Central, holding Taylor solely liable. The court of appeals reversed this decision, but the Supreme Court of Texas overturned the appellate court's ruling, reinstating the original trial court judgment for Central. The Supreme Court emphasized that owners like Central generally owe no duty to ensure the safety practices of independent contractors' employees unless actual control is retained, and that the repair work was not inherently dangerous enough to impose a nondelegable duty. Therefore, Central was not held liable for Islas's injuries.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityDuty to WarnInherently Dangerous ActivityNondelegable DutyJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictTexas LawOccupational SafetyEmployer Liability
References
24
Case No. 15-01392
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Music Mix Mobile LLC v. Newman (In re Stage Presence, Inc.)

This adversary proceeding involves claims by Music Mix Mobile, LLC and other plaintiffs against Stage Presence, Inc. and its owner, Allen Newman. Plaintiffs alleged they were not paid for services provided for a benefit concert and sought to hold Mr. Newman personally liable for Stage Presence's debts under alter ego or piercing the corporate veil theories. The court analyzed whether Mr. Newman excessively dominated Stage Presence and if this was used to perpetrate fraud or injustice. The decision concluded that Stage Presence maintained its separate corporate identity in key financial and operational aspects, and Mr. Newman genuinely believed the concert's funding was legitimate. Consequently, the court dismissed the alter ego claims against Mr. Newman while allowing the underlying claims against Stage Presence.

Bankruptcy LawAlter Ego DoctrinePiercing the Corporate VeilCorporate LiabilityCreditor ClaimsDebtor-Creditor LawFraudulent MisrepresentationContractual ObligationsCorporate FormalitiesUndercapitalization
References
33
Case No. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levias v. Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice

Plaintiff Oscar Levias, an African-American male, sued Defendant Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) under Title VII, alleging failure to promote and retaliation. Levias claimed he was denied promotions to Assistant Plant Manager in November 2000 (when Danny Ticknor, a white male, was reassigned) and February 2002 (when James McDaniel, a white male, was hired), and to Plant Manager in April 2001 (when Alan Albright, a white male, was assigned). He also filed an EEOC complaint in June 2001, asserting discrimination and later retaliation. The court granted TDCJ's motion for summary judgment regarding Albright's appointment, finding Levias failed to establish he sought the position. However, the court denied summary judgment for the other failure-to-promote claims and the retaliation claim, concluding that Levias presented sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find pretext or a mixed motive for discrimination and retaliation. The court discussed the impact of Desert Palace v. Costa on the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting paradigm, affirming that direct evidence is not required for a mixed-motive instruction in Title VII cases.

Title VIIEmployment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFailure to PromoteRetaliationSummary JudgmentMcDonnell DouglasMixed-Motive TheoryPretextEEOC
References
56
Case No. 2025-60-5156
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2025

CLENDENING, CANDICE v. NASHVILLE READY MIX

Candice Clendening, an employee, sought a panel of psychiatrists for a mental injury sustained after a cement mixer rollover crash where her brakes failed. The employer, Nashville Ready Mix, denied psychiatric treatment, arguing that the authorized orthopedist, Dr. Douglas, had not referred her for it and suggested a psychologist instead. The Court, weighing conflicting medical opinions, found Dr. Caruso's psychiatric evaluation more credible and persuasive due to his expertise and thorough examination. Consequently, the Court granted Ms. Clendening's request, ordering Nashville Ready Mix to provide a panel of psychiatrists for her work-related mental injury.

Mental InjuryPTSDMajor Depressive DisorderPsychiatric TreatmentMedical CausationExpedited HearingRollover CrashBrake FailurePhysician ReferralConflicting Medical Opinions
References
3
Case No. 06-12-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2013

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Transit Mix Concrete & Materials Company

Robert Smith, a Texas resident and employee of a Texas construction company, sustained back and leg injuries in Arkansas due to alleged negligence by a Transit Mix Concrete and Materials Company truck driver. Liberty Mutual, the worker's compensation insurer, paid over $91,000 in medical bills. Liberty Mutual filed a subrogation claim in Bowie County, Texas, seeking reimbursement from Transit Mix, which subsequently filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, arguing Arkansas was a more appropriate forum. The trial court granted the dismissal, leading to Liberty Mutual's appeal. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that statutory forum non conveniens applied to the derivative personal injury claim, and that Arkansas was an adequate alternative forum, despite differing 'made whole' subrogation laws. The court found Arkansas had the 'most significant relationship' to the case due to the injury and conduct occurring there, outweighing Texas's interests. Additionally, the court highlighted that dismissal prevents duplicative litigation, as Smith had also filed suit in Arkansas.

Forum Non ConveniensSubrogation ClaimPersonal InjuryChoice of LawWorkers' Compensation InsuranceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate DismissalInterstate JurisdictionDerivative Cause of ActionMade Whole Doctrine
References
66
Showing 1-10 of 780 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