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

La Tier v. Compaq Computer Corp.

Alegría La Tier appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Compaq Computer Corporation in a suit alleging retaliatory discharge. La Tier claimed her termination was in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, while Compaq asserted it was for violating company policy regarding dishonesty and misuse of assets (taking leftover food). The appellate court reviewed whether La Tier presented sufficient evidence to establish a causal link between her workers' compensation claim and termination, and whether Compaq's stated reason for termination was legitimate. The court found that evidence, including supervisors' knowledge of the claim, a negative attitude displayed by a supervisor, and conflicting testimony regarding company policy on taking leftover food, raised genuine issues of material fact. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary Judgment AppealCausal LinkPretextCircumstantial EvidenceEmployment LawBurden ShiftingTexas LawCompany Policy Violation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olivares, Emilio v. Alfonso Mares, and Multi-Building, Inc.

Emilio Olivares, an injured construction worker, sued Alfonso Mares and Multi-Building, Inc., alleging negligence and premises liability after falling from an unsecured joist. Following a jury trial, the court awarded damages but reduced Olivares's past lost wages. On appeal, Olivares challenged the exclusion of a subcontract, the jury charge focusing on premises liability, the omission of Multi-Building from a negligent activity question, and the reduction of the lost wages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury charge, the exclusion of the subcontract, or the reduction of lost wages, and dismissed Multi-Building's conditional cross-points as moot.

NegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLost WagesJury Charge ErrorEvidence ExclusionSubcontract DisputeTexas LawAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
28
Case No. 03-14-00397-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

American Multi-Cinema, Inc.// Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas// Cross-Appellee, American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

This case is an appeal concerning whether American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC) sells 'goods' when exhibiting movies, impacting its eligibility for a cost-of-goods-sold deduction under Texas franchise tax law. The Cross-Appellants (Comptroller and Attorney General) contend that AMC sells intangible property (a license), an experience, or a service, none of which qualify as 'goods' as defined by the Texas Tax Code. They argue that AMC does not produce films, but merely exhibits them, thus not meeting the criteria for the deduction. The brief also addresses the applicability of 2007 and 2013 amendments to the franchise tax statute, asserting they are not retroactive to the 2008 and 2009 tax years at issue. The Cross-Appellants seek to reverse the trial court's decision that AMC is entitled to the deduction.

Franchise TaxCost of Goods SoldTexas Tax CodeMovie ExhibitionIntangible PropertyServicesTax DeductionStatutory InterpretationAppellate LawTax Law
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00712 [158 AD3d 1114]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2018

Bonczar v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

Plaintiff David M. Bonczar commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained when he fell from a ladder in a movie theater owned by American Multi-Cinema, Inc. He was updating a fire alarm system as a subcontractor. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division reversed this order, concluding that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden because he did not know why the ladder malfunctioned and might not have checked its positioning or locking mechanism. The majority found a plausible view that plaintiff's own acts were the sole cause of the accident. A dissenting opinion argued that plaintiff had met his burden and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Ladder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewProximate CausationSole Proximate Cause DefenseWorkplace SafetyFall from HeightStatutory ViolationDuty to Provide Protection
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 1999

Claim of Jhoda v. Mauser Service, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on December 3, 1999. The Board ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Mauser Service, Inc., doing business as Nu Nu Car Service. The claimant, a livery car driver, was shot in March 1993 while on a call directed by the corporation’s dispatcher and asserted a workers’ compensation claim. The corporation contested the claim, arguing it had no relationship with the claimant and that its drivers were independent contractors. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s findings, concluding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the employer-employee relationship and the accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractor disputeLivery car driver injuryRadio-dispatched service liabilitySubstantial evidence reviewCredibility findingControl test for employmentAccident arising out of employmentAppellate affirmanceWorkers' compensation appeal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1990

Claim of Weingarten v. XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc.

This case addresses whether a claimant, a shareholder and participating limousine driver for XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc., qualifies as an employee eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The corporation, which provides dispatch services, requires drivers to purchase shares and own their limousines, covering personal expenses. While drivers have flexible hours, they are obligated to accept "voucher fares" assigned by the corporation, with penalties for refusal, and the corporation manages these payments. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found no employer-employee relationship, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding an employer-employee relationship existed due to the corporation's significant control over the voucher fare system and the claimant's dependence on the corporation for business. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding sufficient evidence of control to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship.

employer-employee relationshipworkers' compensationlimousine driverindependent contractorcontrol testshareholderdispatch servicesvoucher faresadministrative appealNew York
References
12
Case No. 01-02-01007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Sheldon A. Etie v. Walsh & Albert Co., Inc

This case addresses the interpretation of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act regarding the scope of statutory employer/employee status and immunity from suit for subcontractors. The appellant, Sheldon A. Etie, was injured by an employee of Walsh & Albert Company, Ltd., a lower-tier subcontractor, while working on a construction site. Etie received workers' compensation benefits but also filed a negligence suit against Walsh & Albert. The central question was whether the general contractor's workers' compensation policy, which covered all subcontractors and their employees, extended immunity to lower-tier subcontractors. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the statutory employer/employee relationship and subsequent immunity from suit extend throughout all tiers of subcontractors when covered by a single workers' compensation insurance policy provided by the general contractor.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityStatutory Employer DoctrineSubcontractor CoverageExclusive Remedy ProvisionFellow Servant ImmunitySummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code InterpretationConstruction Site InjuryTiered Subcontractor LiabilityIndependent Contractor Status
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Etie v. Walsh & Albert Co., Ltd.

Sheldon A. Etie, an employee of Way Engineering, sustained injuries on a construction site and received workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a third-party negligence suit against Walsh & Albert Company, Ltd., a lower-tier subcontractor, whose employee was responsible for the accident. The central issue on appeal is whether the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act extends statutory employer/employee status and immunity from suit to all subcontractors and their employees, regardless of tier, when a general contractor provides a comprehensive workers' compensation policy. The court affirmed the summary judgment for Walsh & Albert, holding that the statutory employer/employee relationship and immunity apply throughout all tiers of subcontractors when covered by the general contractor's workers' compensation insurance. Consequently, all covered workers are deemed "fellow servants," entitled to benefits and immune from civil suit, making Etie's workers' compensation benefits his exclusive remedy.

Workers' Compensation ActSummary Judgment AppealStatutory EmployerSubcontractor LiabilityExclusive Remedy ProvisionGeneral Contractor InsuranceFellow Servant ImmunityTiered SubcontractorsConstruction IndustryLabor Code Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fina v. New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority

The case involves a claimant who injured his leg while serving as a volunteer ski patroller. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and the New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority, despite the claimant's initial volunteer status being established without controversy. The Board's decision reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's determination that the claimant, a volunteer, was entitled to benefits based on his regular vocation as a self-employed engineer. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination of an employer-employee relationship, noting that the Board relied solely on the claimant's testimony from a time when his volunteer status was undisputed. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for a review of the claimant's average weekly wage based on his volunteer status.

Employer-Employee RelationshipVolunteer StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAverage Weekly WageSubstantial EvidenceScope of Board ReviewSki PatrolGore Mountain Ski CenterNew York State Olympic Regional Development AuthorityRemand
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Corp. v. Allsup

Robert Allsup sued Exxon Corporation for tortious interference with his lifetime employment contract with King Ranch and with a prospective employment relationship with Don Brock, Distributor (DBD). Allsup, a gate guard since 1961 with a verbal lifetime employment agreement, was effectively managed by Exxon and its subcontractors from 1976. In 1988, Exxon awarded the gate guard contract to DBD, who, under Exxon's influence and based on prior complaints from Exxon personnel, refused to hire Allsup. The jury found Exxon tortiously interfered with Allsup's contract and awarded damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of tortious interference and associated damages, including exemplary damages, but reversed the finding regarding negligent handling of employment relationship as it constitutes an intentional tort.

Tortious InterferenceContractual RelationshipProspective EmploymentLifetime ContractActual MalicePunitive DamagesJury VerdictTexas Appellate CourtEmployer InterferenceAffirmative Defense
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 1,749 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