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
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Case No. 15-24-00124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2024

ETC Field Services, LLC FKA. Regency Field Services, LLC v. Tema Oil and Gas Company

This case involves an appeal by ETC Field Services, LLC, challenging a remand order issued by the Business Court of Texas, Eighth Division. The original dispute, a breach of contract and negligence claim filed in 2017 by Tema Oil and Gas Co., was removed by ETC to the newly established Business Court in September 2024. Tema subsequently sought remand, arguing that the legislative act creating the Business Courts (H.B. 19) only applies to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024. The Business Court agreed, ordering the case remanded to the 236th District Court of Tarrant County. ETC contends that H.B. 19 is a procedural statute and that its provisions for removal should apply retroactively to existing cases, asserting that the Business Court erred in its statutory interpretation and determination of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Business Court denied Tema's request for sanctions against ETC.

JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationBusiness LawRemand OrderTexas CourtsCivil ProcedureRetroactivityContract DisputeOil and Gas Industry
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp.

Elfriede Mayer sued Oil Field Systems Corp. (OFS) and Integrated Energy Inc. (Integrated) alleging securities and common law fraud. Mayer, a limited partner in Mark Energy Partnerships (MEP), claimed misallocation of Integrated stock and insufficient disclosure regarding its arbitrary $10/share valuation, which affected partnership payouts. She also asserted misleading statements about an underwriter and stock performance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Mayer was not deceived. The court found that Mayer had actual knowledge of the facts allegedly withheld, including the arbitrary stock valuation and the method of determining payout, through various disclosures provided by OFS and Integrated. Concluding that no deception occurred, a prerequisite for federal securities claims, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, also declining jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Securities FraudCommon Law FraudLimited PartnershipStock ValuationSummary JudgmentMisallocation of SharesDisclosure RequirementsMaterial FactFiduciary DutyFederal Securities Laws
References
18
Case No. 05-21-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

Murphy Oil USA, Inc. D/B/A Murphy Oil USA 7350 v. Donnetta Stegall

Donnetta Stegall, an employee of Murphy Oil USA, Inc., sued her employer for premises liability after falling in the store's parking lot and injuring her ankle before her scheduled shift. Murphy Oil appealed the trial court's judgment in Stegall's favor, asserting that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA) provided the exclusive remedy, thereby barring Stegall's common law claim. The central legal question was whether Stegall's injury occurred within the "course and scope of employment," which would activate the TWCA's exclusive remedy provision, specifically considering the "going-to-and-from-work" exclusion and the "access doctrine" exception. The appellate court determined that the "access doctrine" did not apply because the parking lot was accessible to the general public, not exclusively designated for employees. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Stegall's injury was not work-related under the TWCA, and thus the exclusive remedy provision did not preclude her premises liability claim.

Premises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionCourse and Scope of EmploymentAccess DoctrineGoing-to-and-from-work RuleEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 07-08-0160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Charlotte Welch, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of L v. Welch v. Hurd Oil Field Services, Inc.

Charlotte Welch, individually and as representative of the Estate of L.V. Welch, appeals a summary judgment entered in favor of Hurd Oil Field Service, Inc. The wrongful death suit alleged negligence, claiming Hurd's employee, Robert Browning, owed a duty of care to L.V. Welch, an inexperienced worker, and breached it, leading to L.V.'s death by heat exhaustion. The court reviewed the trial court's summary judgment de novo, focusing on whether Browning owed an assumed or other duty of care to L.V. Welch. The appellate court found that Browning did not assume such a duty, as his actions were limited to observing and reporting, not intervening, and that Texas law generally imposes no 'good Samaritan' duty. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimDuty of CareAssumed DutyGood Samaritan RuleHeat ExhaustionOil Field ServicesInexperienced WorkerCrane Operator
References
23
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Moore

Herbert B. Moore, an employee of Greta Oil Company, tragically died in a car accident in Louisiana while engaged in a "scouting" mission for his employer. His dependents, Mrs. Loula Moore and her sons, filed a worker's compensation claim against the Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, Greta Oil Company's compensation carrier. The defense challenged Moore's employment status and the extraterritorial applicability of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming Moore's employment with Greta and his death in the course of duty. The appellate court subsequently reformed the judgment concerning financial calculations but ultimately affirmed the core decision, upholding the award of compensation to the appellees.

Workman's CompensationExtraterritorial EmploymentTexas LawLouisiana AccidentEmployee Status DisputeOil IndustryJury VerdictContract InterpretationInsurance LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. 2015-07-0089
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2016

Duck, Melissa v. Cox Oil Company

This interlocutory appeal concerns an employee, Melissa Duck, who fell on her employer's premises immediately after announcing she was quitting. The trial court initially ordered the employer, Cox Oil Company, to provide medical benefits, reasoning that an employee remains in the course of employment for a reasonable time after termination. However, the Appeals Board reversed this decision. They concluded that because the employee admitted to quitting before her fall, the employment relationship had ended, and therefore the employment could not have contributed more than fifty percent to her injury as required by Tennessee law. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings.

Employment TerminationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentSlipping AccidentPremises LiabilityMedical BenefitsBurden of ProofStatutory InterpretationAppeals BoardInterlocutory Appeal
References
23
Case No. 01–04–01277–CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2006

Zapata County and Zapata Independent School District v. Conocophillips Company on Its Own Behalf and as Successor–by–merger to Conoco Inc. (f/K/A Continental Oil Company, Inc.) Brandywine Industrial Gas, Inc. Phillips Petroleum Company El Paso Production Oil and Gas Company

This opinion consolidates 19 separate suits filed by various Texas counties and school districts (Taxing Units) against numerous oil and gas companies (Oil Companies). The Taxing Units alleged fraud and conspiracy to defraud through schemes to undervalue oil and gas reserves for ad valorem tax purposes, leading to underpayment of taxes. The trial courts granted the Oil Companies' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the cases because the Taxing Units failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Tax Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Tax Code provides the exclusive means for addressing such claims, establishing a pervasive regulatory scheme through the Appraisal Review Board, and offering remedies like challenging valuations or back-appraising omitted property. The court held that the Taxing Units cannot bypass the comprehensive statutory scheme by recharacterizing tax disputes as common-law fraud cases.

Ad Valorem TaxProperty ValuationTax FraudAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeAppraisal Review BoardOil and Gas TaxationMineral InterestsExhaustion of Remedies
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Dossey

Dossey, a Texas resident, was hired in Texas by Lowe Drilling Company, whose principal office was in Midland, Texas, to work in both Texas and New Mexico oil fields. He sustained an injury in New Mexico. The trial court and Court of Civil Appeals had ruled in favor of Dossey, granting him total and permanent disability under Texas Workmen's Compensation Law. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed these judgments, stating that while an employee hired in Texas to work in both states can maintain Texas employee status even if initially working out of state, the evidence regarding the specific terms of Dossey's employment contract was inconclusive as to whether he was hired to work in Texas as well as New Mexico. The Court concluded that the trial court erred by not submitting this factual question to the jury. The case is now remanded to the trial court for further proceedings to ascertain Dossey's Texas employee status.

Workmen's CompensationExtraterritorial JurisdictionTexas LawNew Mexico InjuryContract InterpretationEmployee StatusOil and Gas IndustryRemandInterstate EmploymentJury Question
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 15,559 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