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. NO . 13-0136
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2015

Nabors Well Services, Ltd. F/K/A Pool Company Texas, Ltd. and Lauro Bernal Garcia v. Asuncion Romero, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Aydee Romero, and as Next Friend of Edgar Romero and Saul Romero Esperanza Soto, Individually and as Next Friend of Esperanza Soto, Guadalupe Soto, Maria Elena Soto And Marti

The Texas Supreme Court overruled its 1974 precedent, Carnation Co. v. Wong, which barred evidence of seat-belt nonuse in civil car-accident cases. In this decision, delivered by Justice Brown, the Court held that relevant evidence of a plaintiff's pre-occurrence, injury-causing conduct, such as failure to use a seat belt, is admissible for apportioning responsibility under the state's proportionate-responsibility statute. The Court reasoned that legislative changes to Texas's fault apportionment system and modern seat-belt laws have rendered the old rule anachronistic. The case involved a collision where seat-belt use was disputed, and the trial court had excluded seat-belt evidence based on the Carnation precedent. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with this new interpretation.

Seat Belt DefenseComparative NegligenceProportionate ResponsibilityTort ReformInjury CausationAutomobile AccidentTexas Supreme CourtLegal PrecedentStatutory InterpretationCivil Procedure
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Orozco

This is an appeal from an interlocutory judgment concerning a plea of privilege in a worker’s compensation case. Appellant, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA), sought to be sued in Lubbock County, where the injury occurred, while appellee, Jose T. Orozco (Orozco), filed suit in Webb County, his county of residence. The trial court in Webb County overruled TEIA’s plea of privilege, a decision which is being appealed here. Previous related litigation involving the same parties had affirmed the transfer of the case to Webb County, and the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal for want of jurisdiction. Citing precedents like Hagemeister v. Vanity Fair Properties and Pinney v. Cook, the court emphasized that a final judgment on a plea of privilege is conclusive on the issue of venue. Therefore, the court affirmed the order of the trial court overruling TEIA’s plea of privilege.

Venue DisputePlea of PrivilegeInterlocutory JudgmentRes JudicataWorkers Compensation LawAppellate ReviewTexas LawCourt JurisdictionStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Betts v. Tom Wade Gin

This workers' compensation case addresses whether an injured employee must tender settlement money received as a condition precedent to setting aside that agreement. James Betts, who suffered severe arm amputations while working at Tom Wade Gin, initially settled his claim for $45,000, but later sought to set aside the agreement under T.C.A. § 50-6-206. The trial court, following existing Tennessee case law, required Betts to tender the funds, a condition he did not meet, leading to the denial of his motion. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that tender is not required in such cases due to the remedial nature of workers' compensation statutes and to protect injured workers from unfair settlements. The court thus overruled prior precedents and remanded the case, allowing Betts to pursue his claim for higher compensation without returning the initial settlement amount.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement AgreementsTender RequirementStatutory InterpretationRemedial StatutesContract Law PrinciplesJudicial PrecedentEmployer LiabilityEmployee BenefitsArm Amputation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cope Construction Co. v. Power

Randy Power suffered injuries on June 13, 1975, while riding on a tailgate of a truck owned by Cope Construction Co. and driven by Herman Yeager. Power filed a workers' compensation claim and subsequently a common-law tort claim in Galveston County against Cope Construction Co. and Herman Yeager. Cope's carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, also initiated a suit in Galveston County regarding Power's employment status. The appellants (Cope and Yeager) filed a plea of privilege, which was controverted by Power. Following motions to consolidate and reconsider, which were denied, the trial court overruled the plea of privilege. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the appellants had waived their plea of privilege through actions inconsistent with maintaining it, specifically by actively participating in and challenging the consolidation of the cases.

Plea of PrivilegeWaiver of VenueWorkers' CompensationTort ClaimMotion to ConsolidateAppellate ProcedureTexas LawCivil ProcedureVenue StatuteJudicial Conduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farm Air Service, Inc. v. Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co.

The case involves an appeal from an order overruling a plea of privilege. Houston Fire- & Casualty Insurance Company, the appellee, sued Farm Air Service, Inc., the appellant, to collect excess premiums on workmen's compensation insurance policies. Farm Air Service, Inc. sought to have the case moved to its domicile in Jefferson County, Texas. However, Houston Fire- & Casualty Insurance Company argued that venue was proper in Travis County, Texas, under Article 1995 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St., because the insurance contract was made through the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Assigned Risk Pool, which maintained an office and fund in Austin (Travis County). The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the cause of action, or part thereof, arose in Travis County due to the contractual activities of the Assigned Risk Pool in Austin. This established that venue was appropriately retained in Travis County.

VenuePlea of PrivilegeInsurance LawWorkmen's CompensationContract LawTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCorporate LiabilityPremium CollectionAssigned Risk Pool
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrott v. Commissioner SSA

The plaintiff sought judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's decision denying disability benefits. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was not timely filed. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the motion to dismiss, concluding the complaint was untimely. The plaintiff filed objections, introducing a new theory of constructive possession of the complaint by the clerk. The District Court, after de novo review, overruled the plaintiff's objections, citing the impropriety of raising new legal theories before the district judge that were not presented to the magistrate judge. Consequently, the court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Social Security DisabilityJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissTimelinessFiling DeadlinesMagistrate Judge RecommendationsObjections to ReportDe Novo ReviewConstructive PossessionFederal Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 1997

Riley v. Champion International Corp.

This case involves a lawsuit brought by Charles and Helen Riley against Champion International Corporation. Charles Riley, an independent logging contractor, contracted Lyme disease from a tick bite on Champion's property. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract for Champion's failure to warn about Lyme disease, and Helen Riley claimed loss of consortium and household services. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment on most tort claims but denying it for breach of contract. The Chief Judge adopted parts of this, affirming summary judgment on premises liability and misrepresentation negligence claims. However, the Chief Judge overruled the Magistrate Judge's conclusion on the "increased risk of harm" prong of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Champion's failure to provide safety information increased the risk of developing a chronic Lyme infection. Consequently, claims for breach of contract, negligent performance, gross negligence, loss of consortium, loss of household services, and punitive damages were revived for trial.

NegligenceBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLyme DiseaseIndependent ContractorDuty to WarnAssumed DutyGross NegligenceLoss of Consortium
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pike v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.

This ERISA action involves Gina Pike's challenge against Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company's termination of her long-term disability benefits. Hartford initially paid benefits for over six years under the "Any Occupation" definition but ceased payments, claiming improved functionality. The Magistrate Judge found in favor of Plaintiff, concluding her disability persisted based on treating physicians' opinions, her chronic pain, and medication side effects, while giving minimal weight to Hartford's reviewing physicians. The District Judge conducted a de novo review, overruled Hartford's objections, and adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, reinstating Plaintiff's LTD benefits. Plaintiff was also deemed entitled to prejudgment interest, costs, and attorney's fees, with amounts to be determined in a separate motion.

ERISALong Term DisabilityBenefits TerminationChronic PainLumbar Degenerative Disc DiseaseRadiculopathySpinal Fusion SurgeryPain ManagementIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Treating Physician Opinion
References
81
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1994

Tatum v. Community Bank

Brenda Tatum, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for in forma pauperis status and appointment of counsel in a proposed Title VII racial discrimination suit against her former employer, Community Bank. Magistrate Judge Earl S. Hines recommended granting in forma pauperis but denying counsel, citing a lack of a meritorious claim despite Tatum establishing a prima facie case. Tatum filed objections, arguing that the employer's stated reasons for her termination were a pretext for racial discrimination. District Judge Joe J. Fisher conducted a de novo review, adopting the magistrate judge's report and overruling Tatum's objections. The court granted Tatum's motion to proceed in forma pauperis but denied her request for appointed counsel, concluding that her subjective beliefs and speculative allegations were insufficient to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success or prove discriminatory intent.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIIIn Forma PauperisAppointment of CounselPro Se LitigantPrima Facie CasePretextDisparate TreatmentMagistrate Judge Report
References
22
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 1,965 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