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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Claimant, a truck driver for Anchor Motor Freight since 1969 and owner of a construction business since 1973, injured his back in 1976. A dispute arose regarding the calculation of his average weekly wage for workers' compensation, with claimant advocating for the "200 multiple" method under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (3). Anchor Motor Freight argued against this, citing claimant's voluntary limitation of employment due to his construction business. The Workers’ Compensation Board and the appellate court affirmed that claimant voluntarily limited his employment with Anchor, thus his average weekly wage should be based on actual earnings rather than the 200 multiple method. The court further clarified that conflicting dual employments where one limits availability for the other constitutes a voluntary limitation.

Average Weekly Wage CalculationVoluntary Limitation of EmploymentDual Employment ConflictWorkers' Compensation Law § 14(3)Disability ApportionmentPart-Time EmploymentConcurrent EmploymentEmployer Payroll RecordsUnion Rules ImpactJudicial Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Plaintiff, a mechanic for M&G Convoy, Inc., was severely injured when an M&G employee, unaware of plaintiff's presence, moved a tractor-trailer plaintiff was working on at Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.'s terminal. A jury found Anchor 80% negligent and M&G 20% negligent under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, awarding $5,000,000. Anchor later settled with the plaintiff for $1,999,500, with M&G waiving its workers' compensation lien. The appellate court reviewed the apportionment of liability, finding sufficient evidence for negligence by both Anchor and M&G. The court determined the jury's apportionment was against the weight of the evidence and directed a new trial on liability apportionment unless parties stipulated to 80% liability for M&G and 20% for Anchor; Harold Henderson's appeal was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation LienCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Apportionment of LiabilityJury Verdict ReviewSafe Place to Work DoctrineThird-Party ActionSettlement AgreementProximate CauseEvidentiary Rulings
References
18
Case No. 03-02-00403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2003

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves an appeal concerning sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board against Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. (collectively "Bossier") for violations of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code, specifically fraudulent practices that led to $180,000 in civil penalties. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board's authority to sanction non-licensees for new vehicle sales violations under section 4.06(a)(5). However, it reversed the district court's finding of Board jurisdiction over used vehicle sales violations of section 4.06(a)(5) occurring before June 8, 1995. Additionally, the Court reversed the Board's power to prospectively limit Pretzer's employment in the motor vehicle industry. The case was remanded to the district court for redetermination of civil penalties consistent with the opinion, while Bossier's other arguments regarding notice, standard of proof, and constitutional challenges were overruled.

Motor Vehicle Code ViolationsFraudulent PracticesCivil PenaltiesStatutory AuthorityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUsed Vehicle SalesNew Vehicle SalesLicense RevocationDue Process
References
49
Case No. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. 03-07-00509-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2009

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This original proceeding involves the district court's plenary power over a suit inadvertently dismissed for want of prosecution while abated. The underlying suit by Landmark against General Motors and Austin Chevrolet was abated in 2001. In 2003, the district court inadvertently dismissed the suit. In 2007, the trial court vacated the dismissal and reinstated the suit. Relators General Motors and Austin Chevrolet sought a writ of mandamus, arguing the 2007 order was void because it was issued after the expiration of the district court's plenary power. The Court of Appeals conditionally granted the writ, holding that the 2003 dismissal was not void, and thus the district court's plenary power had expired, making the 2007 order void.

mandamusplenary powerdismissal for want of prosecutionabatementsubject-matter jurisdictionvoid ordersjudicial discretionadministrative remediesTexas appellate procedurecivil procedure
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiffs James D. Delaney and Patricia L. Delaney moved to remand their case to state court, challenging the removal by Defendants Viking Freight, Inc. and Central Freight, Inc. Plaintiffs argued the removal was untimely, the action arose under state worker’s compensation laws, and it presented an unsettled question of state law. The court focused on the timeliness of the removal, specifically whether Defendants filed their notice within 30 days of first ascertaining fraudulent joinder of Central Freight. Defendants contended that the 30-day period started on October 13, 1998, when Plaintiffs' counsel voluntarily admitted Central Freight was not a proper party. However, the court found Defendants knew of the fraudulent joinder by July 8, 1998, through their amended answer, or alternatively by September 8, 1998, upon receipt of James Delaney's deposition transcript. Consequently, the court determined the removal notice was not timely filed and GRANTED Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case to the 6th Judicial District Court of Lamar County, Texas.

Remand MotionTimeliness of RemovalFraudulent JoinderDiversity JurisdictionFederal Court AbstentionWorker's Compensation Laws30-Day Removal PeriodVoluntary-Involuntary RuleOther Paper Rule (§ 1446(b))Subjective Knowledge
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case concerns an appeal by Randy Pretzer, Scott Bossier, and Bossier Chrysler-Dodge II, Inc. d/b/a Bossier Country (collectively, "Bossier") against sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Board and Motor Vehicle Division of the Texas Department of Transportation ("Board"). The Board had imposed civil penalties for violations of sections 4.06(a)(5) and 4.06(a)(6) of the Texas Motor Vehicle Code. The district court affirmed in part, overruled in part, and reversed and remanded in part the Board's final order. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment in part, reversed and rendered in part concerning the Board's power to bar Pretzer from the motor vehicle industry, and remanded the cause for further proceedings regarding the redetermination of civil penalties based on the correct jurisdictional scope of section 4.06(a)(5) for used vehicle sales before June 8, 1995.

Texas Motor Vehicle CodeStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawCivil PenaltiesFraudulent PracticesDealer LicensingNon-licensee SanctionsUsed Vehicle SalesSubstantial Evidence ReviewEqual Protection
References
50
Case No. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Plaintiff Svetlana Tikhonova suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Alexey Konovalov, a Russian diplomat immune from direct suit. Tikhonova subsequently filed a claim against Ford Motor Credit Company, the registered owner, and Ford Motor Company, the long-term lessee of the vehicle, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) for vicarious liability. The defendants argued that the driver's diplomatic immunity should shield them from liability, citing precedents from workers' compensation and volunteer firefighter cases. However, the court rejected this argument, asserting that there is no public policy rationale or statutory scheme that warrants extending diplomatic immunity to unrelated third parties. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the plaintiff's complaint.

Vicarious LiabilityDiplomatic ImmunityVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Car Owner LiabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPublic PolicyWorkers' Compensation PrecedentFederal Drivers Act
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Robin Ely, individually and as representative of the estate of Paul J. Ely, brought a wrongful death suit against Darrell Durham, Dow Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc. (Dow), and General Motors after Paul Ely was killed by a vehicle driven by Durham, a Dow mechanic. The trial court granted summary judgment for General Motors, which Ely appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that General Motors was not vicariously liable for Durham's actions, as no agency relationship or joint enterprise was established due to a lack of control over the specific injury-causing act. Additionally, the court found no independent negligence on the part of General Motors, concluding there was no legal duty to ensure Dow's capitalization or implement a drug policy for Dow's employees, and that any alleged negligence in these areas was too remotely connected to Paul Ely's death. The claim of negligent marketing of a high-speed vehicle was also rejected due to the absence of a fiduciary duty.

Wrongful DeathVicarious LiabilityAgency RelationshipJoint EnterpriseSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimProximate CauseFranchisor-FranchiseeAutomotive IndustryProduct Liability
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 799 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