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

Gunn Chevrolet, Inc. v. Hinerman

Mara Hinerman, a salesperson for Gunn Chevrolet, was injured in a car accident while driving a demonstrator car. She was later fired for leaving work early without permission after taking time off for treatment. Hinerman, despite Gunn being a non-subscribing employer, filed a compensation claim and sued for retaliatory discharge under Section 451.001 of the Texas Labor Code. The core issue was whether this statute imposes liability on a non-subscribing employer for retaliatory discharge when the employer did not cause the injury. The Supreme Court of Texas held that there was no good faith claim for compensation against Gunn because it was a non-subscriber and Hinerman never claimed Gunn caused her injury. The Court reversed the court of appeals' decision and reinstated the trial court's judgment for Gunn.

Retaliatory DischargeNon-Subscribing EmployerWorkers' Compensation ClaimGood Faith ClaimTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityJob-Related InjuryEmployee Rights
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kroger Co. v. Keng

Sonja Keng sued her employer, Kroger Company, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance, for work-related injuries after falling from a ladder. Keng alleged Kroger's negligence caused her injuries, while Kroger sought to introduce a comparative-responsibility question to the jury, arguing Keng's own conduct contributed to the incident. The trial court refused Kroger's request, finding Kroger negligent and awarding Keng damages. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding the comparative-responsibility statute does not apply to Keng's claim and that non-subscribing employers are prohibited from using employee negligence as a defense. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Texas Labor Code § 406.033 precludes a finding of contributory negligence, which is a prerequisite for determining comparative responsibility, thus denying a non-subscribing employer a jury question on an employee's alleged comparative responsibility.

Comparative NegligenceContributory NegligenceWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer LiabilityEmployee InjuryStatutory ConstructionCommon-Law DefensesJury QuestionTexas Labor CodeProximate Cause
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gomez v. O'Reilly Auto. Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff Maria Gomez sued Defendants O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. and O'Reilly Automotive, Inc. d/b/a O'Reilly Auto Parts for negligence, alleging a workplace injury and that the defendants were non-subscribers under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). The defendants removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Gomez filed a motion to remand, arguing that her claims, being against a non-subscribing employer, arose under the TWCA and were therefore nonremovable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). The Court denied the motion, finding that negligence claims against non-subscribing employers are common law claims, not created by the TWCA, and do not raise a substantial question of the TWCA. The Court also rejected the argument that a split in authority among district courts warranted remand, asserting its obligation to decide the issue and noting a growing consensus against remand in similar cases.

Motion to RemandWorkers' CompensationNonsubscriber EmployerNegligenceDiversity JurisdictionFederal RemovalStatutory InterpretationCommon LawTexas Labor CodeFederal Courts
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Storage & Processors, Inc. v. Reyes

Justice SCHNEIDER's concurring opinion supports the Court's decision that employers must adhere to fair notice requirements, including the express-negligence doctrine and conspicuousness, when enrolling employees in non-subscriber workers’ compensation benefit plans. The Justice provides an additional rationale, highlighting that workers are typically less sophisticated than the employers who draft these agreements, often unaware of the rights they forfeit. The case of Reyes, a non-English speaker who signed an English contract despite a Spanish summary, is cited as an example of this disparity. Justice SCHNEIDER argues that due to this inherent power imbalance, there is a strong public policy justification to mandate that these non-subscriber agreements satisfy both fair notice requirements.

Workers' CompensationNon-subscriber agreementsFair noticeExpress-negligenceConspicuousnessEmployer liabilityEmployee rightsContract lawPublic policyDisparity of bargaining power
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Addison v. Diversified Healthcare/Dallas, L.L.C.

Willie Addison appealed the trial court's summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge lawsuit against Diversified Healthcare/Dallas, L.L.C. d/b/a Brookhaven Nursing Center. Addison claimed retaliatory discharge under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act after injuring his back at work and being terminated. Brookhaven, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance, successfully argued it was not subject to such claims. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that only subscribing employers are liable under Texas Labor Code § 451.001, and Brookhaven conclusively proved its non-subscriber status. The court also rejected Addison's argument to apply fair notice requirements of the express-negligence doctrine to this statutory claim.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation Non-SubscriberSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeEmployment LawEmployer LiabilityFair Notice DoctrineExpress NegligenceWrongful TerminationAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Health Enterprises, Inc. v. Kirkgard

Teresita Belen Kirkgard and Thelma Jean Rogers, along with several other employees, sued Texas Health Enterprises (T.H.E.) for wrongful termination. T.H.E., a non-subscriber to the Texas workers' compensation system, had mandated that its employees waive their rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and common law as a condition of employment, terminating those who refused. The case, initially removed to federal court and then remanded, resulted in a trial court finding T.H.E. liable under Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c and awarding both actual and exemplary damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, determining that Article 8307c applies to employees of both subscribing and non-subscribing employers and that T.H.E.'s actions violated Article 8308-3.09, which voids agreements to waive workers' compensation rights. The appellate court upheld the trial court's exercise of jurisdiction and the damage awards, rejecting T.H.E.'s arguments regarding the ERISA plan and the sufficiency of evidence for damages.

Wrongful terminationRetaliatory dischargeNon-subscriber employerWorkers' compensation waiverERISA preemptionPublic policyExemplary damagesActual damagesEmployment at willStatutory rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lambert v. Affiliated Foods, Inc.

Danny Lee Lambert and his family appealed a trial court's summary judgment favoring Affiliated Foods, Inc., on a personal injury claim. Lambert, injured while employed by non-subscriber Affiliated, had waived his right to sue in exchange for benefits from the company's disability plan. After accepting $57,698.32 in benefits, Lambert filed suit, but the trial court upheld Affiliated's defenses of waiver, ratification, and estoppel. On appeal, Lambert contended the waiver was void against public policy and argued that the plan benefits were not equivalent to workers' compensation. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, declining to invalidate the waiver on public policy grounds and citing prior case law that upheld such waivers against non-subscribing employers.

Workers' Compensation Non-SubscriberWaiver of RightsEmployment AgreementPublic PolicySummary Judgment AppealPersonal InjuryEmployer Disability Benefit PlanEstoppel DefenseRatification DefenseSeparation of Powers
References
26
Case No. 02-1008
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2004

Storage & Processors, Inc. and Leonel Guerrero v. Ramon Reyes

This case addresses whether an employer must meet the fair notice requirements of the express negligence doctrine and conspicuousness when enrolling employees in a non-subscriber workers' compensation benefits plan. The Supreme Court of Texas held that employers must satisfy these requirements, affirming the court of appeals' judgment. Ramon Reyes, an employee, was injured and sued his employer, Storage & Processors, Inc., and co-employee Leonel Guerrero, after accepting benefits from a non-subscriber plan. The Court emphasized that due to the strong public policy surrounding workers' compensation in Texas, these agreements, despite involving less than total risk shifting, necessitate clear understanding from the workers. A factual dispute regarding Reyes's actual knowledge of the plan's terms remains for the trial court.

Fair Notice RequirementsExpress Negligence DoctrineConspicuousnessNon-subscriber PlansWorkers Compensation BenefitsLiability WaiverSummary JudgmentPublic PolicyRisk ShiftingActual Knowledge
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dean v. Texas Steel Co.

The case concerns a motion to remand filed by a plaintiff, a former employee, against a defendant employer who did not subscribe to Texas workers’ compensation coverage. The plaintiff was terminated after being injured on the job and subsequently filed a retaliatory discharge claim in state court, which the defendant removed to federal court. The core issue was whether the plaintiff's claim, brought under Texas Revised Civil Statutes Article 8307c § 1, "arises under" state workers’ compensation laws, thereby making it non-removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). The court, following Fifth Circuit precedent, ruled that such claims, even against non-subscribing employers, fall within the ambit of Texas workers' compensation law and are not preempted by federal statutes like LMRA or ERISA. Therefore, the plaintiff's motion to remand to state court was granted, while the request for attorney's fees was denied.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeMotion to RemandFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimNon-Subscriber EmployerERISA PreemptionLMRA PreemptionTexas Civil StatutesJudicial Precedent
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,711 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