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. 13-05-065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2007

Phoenix Assurance Company of New York v. Dallas Fire Insurance Company and Anthony Brown

This appeal arises from a summary judgment granted in favor of Dallas Fire Insurance Company (Dallas Insurance) and against Phoenix Assurance Company of New York (Phoenix Assurance) in a workers' compensation case. The core issue revolves around determining whether Staff Force, Inc. or Roofing Supply of Corpus Christi was the employer of Anthony Brown for workers' compensation purposes, which dictates the responsible insurer. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to Dallas Insurance, identifying Roofing Supply as the employer. However, the appellate court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of an agreement for workers' compensation coverage between Staff Force and Roofing Supply. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to resolve this factual dispute.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentJudicial EstoppelEmployer-Employee RelationshipInsurance Carrier LiabilityTemporary Staffing AgencyBorrowed Servant DoctrineFact IssueRemandAgreement Interpretation
References
20
Case No. 13-12-00763-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2015

Ajas, Inc. v. Idaho Pacific Lumber Company, Inc.

In this Texas Court of Appeals case, Ajas, Inc. appealed a summary judgment, lien foreclosure, and attorney's fees awarded to Idaho Pacific Lumber Company, Inc. The original suit by Idaho Pacific Lumber was against DaRam Companies and its guarantor, Kirk Countryman, concerning a credit contract and materials supplied for a construction project. Ajas, Inc. was included in the summary judgment based on materialman's liens. The appellate court found that Idaho Pacific Lumber failed to provide sufficient pleading or evidence to establish a direct liability against Ajas, Inc. and did not substantially comply with statutory requirements for perfecting a materialman's lien. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary Judgment AppealLien ForeclosureMaterialman's LienAttorney's FeesContract BreachStatutory ComplianceAppellate ProcedureLegal SufficiencyProperty Owner LiabilityTexas Courts of Appeals
References
34
Case No. 12-99-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2001

Kenneth Synar, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Appellees/Cross-Appellants

Kenneth Synar, a switchman, sued Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) and Federal Safety Appliance Act (FSAA) for a repetitive-use injury. A jury found UP negligent and in violation of the FSAA, but also found Synar 30% contributorily negligent. The trial court initially reduced the award based on contributory negligence, but the Court of Appeals reinstated the FSAA finding, negating the reduction. However, the appellate court reversed awards for past and future medical expenses due to insufficient evidence. The modified judgment affirmed a total award of $541,300.00 for lost earning capacity and past lost wages.

FELAFSAARailroad Employee InjuryRepetitive Motion InjuryUlnar Nerve NeuropathySwitching Yard SafetyDefective EquipmentForeseeability of HarmExpert Witness AdmissibilityLost Wages
References
95
Case No. 3-92-298-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1993

Receiver for Citizen's National Assurance Company, an Impaired Company v. Johnny Ray Hatley

This case involves an appeal by the Receiver for Citizen's National Assurance Company (appellant) against Johnny Ray Hatley (appellee) regarding workers' compensation benefits. Hatley was injured in a truck accident and received a third-party settlement, part of which went to the Receiver. The Receiver had signed a release of all claims and rights but argued that the settlement should be treated as an advance against future workers' compensation benefits under former article 8307, section 6a of the workers' compensation law, contending the release was not legally effective or lacked consideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Hatley, ruling that the release constituted a specific waiver by the Receiver of its statutory rights and was supported by valid consideration.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party LiabilitySettlement AgreementStatutory OffsetContractual ReleaseConsideration in ContractsSubrogation WaiverReimbursement RightsAppellate ReviewTravis County District Court
References
7
Case No. 3-91-335-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1992

PACIFIC INDEM. INS. v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company (Pacific Indemnity) paid workers' compensation benefits to Vidal Lopez. Pacific Indemnity then sued Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual) for reimbursement without first seeking relief from the Industrial Accident Board (IAB). The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual because Pacific Indemnity failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the IAB had exclusive jurisdiction and Pacific Indemnity's failure to obtain an IAB ruling on the reimbursement issue barred the lawsuit.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineInsurance ReimbursementIndustrial Accident BoardSummary JudgmentTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate CourtJurisdictional DisputeCarrier Dispute
References
3
Case No. 04-07-00859-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2009

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Bill Hibdon

This case concerns an appeal regarding a workers' compensation claim where Pacific Employers Insurance Company (Pacific) contested the compensability of an injury claimed by Bill Hibdon. The core issue was whether Pacific had waived its right to contest compensability by allegedly failing to timely send notice of refusal to pay benefits to Hibdon, as required by the version of Texas Labor Code § 409.021(a) in effect at the time. The trial court affirmed an appeals panel decision, concluding Pacific had waived its right due to Hibdon's non-receipt of timely notice. However, citing Sw. Bell Tel. v. Mitchell, the appellate court determined that failure to send or receive notice within the statutory seven-day period does not constitute a waiver of the insurer's right to contest compensability. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of Pacific, holding it did not waive its right.

Workers' CompensationWaiverInsurance CarrierNotice of RefusalCompensabilityTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentReversal
References
5
Case No. 03-08-00059-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2010

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Twelve Oaks Medical Center

This document presents a concurring and dissenting opinion in an appeal before the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin. The case involves Pacific Employers Insurance Company as the appellant and Twelve Oaks Medical Center as the appellee, appealing a district court decision regarding judicial review of a workers' compensation medical dispute resolution. The dissenting justice agrees with the majority that Twelve Oaks Medical Center failed to exercise due diligence in serving the appellant. However, the dissent argues that the majority erred in dismissing the appeal for want of jurisdiction, contending that limitations is an affirmative defense rather than a jurisdictional defect in this context. The dissenting justice would have reversed the district court's order granting remand and instead rendered judgment in favor of Pacific Employers Insurance Company, asserting that the suit was barred by limitations.

Limitations DefenseDue DiligenceAppellate ProcedureJurisdictional DefectsAffirmative DefenseWorkers' CompensationMedical Dispute ResolutionAdministrative LawService of ProcessSummary Judgment Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Vidal Lopez

Pacific Indemnity Insurance, a workers' compensation carrier, sued Liberty Mutual Insurance for reimbursement in district court without first exhausting administrative remedies with the Industrial Accident Board (IAB). This lawsuit stemmed from a worker's injury in 1984 and subsequent re-injury in 1988. Pacific Indemnity, the carrier for the initial injury, continued to pay benefits after the re-injury and sought reimbursement from Liberty Mutual, the subsequent carrier, which was denied. The IAB issued orders regarding payments but did not address the reimbursement claim. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty Mutual, a decision upheld on appeal because Pacific Indemnity failed to obtain an IAB ruling on the reimbursement issue before filing suit, thereby lacking jurisdiction in district court. The failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars the suit as a matter of law.

Administrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance ReimbursementIndustrial Accident BoardJurisdictionAppellate ReviewCarrier DisputeRepetitious TraumaTexas Workers' Compensation Law
References
3
Case No. 06-02-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2004

Russell Burke and Wife, Lori Burke, and Bob Anderson, as Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee v. Union Pacific Resources Company, N/K/A Anadarko E & P Company, Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. and Jere Pritchett

This case concerns an appeal regarding property damage to a water well caused by seismic testing. The appellants, Russell and Lori Burke and their bankruptcy trustee, sued Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC) and Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. (PWW). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the Burkes' negligence claim and PWW's tortious interference claim were barred by the statute of limitations. For the Burkes' breach of contract claim, the court found the $1.5 million jury award factually insufficient, suggesting a remittitur. Following the acceptance of a $653,700.00 remittitur by the Burkes, the judgment was modified and affirmed, resulting in a recovery of $842,300.00 for the Burkes and a take-nothing judgment for PWW.

Property DamageSeismic TestingWater WellCattle FeedlotBreach of ContractNegligenceTortious InterferenceStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleDamages
References
74
Case No. 11 Civ. 804
Regular Panel Decision

China Media Express Holdings, Inc. ex rel. Barth v. Nexus Executive Risks, Ltd.

Plaintiff China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc., through its receiver, sued its insurers, American Home Assurance Company, China Pacific Insurance Co., and China Ping An Insurance (Hong Kong) Company Ltd., for breach of contract due to their refusal to defend and indemnify CME in underlying securities litigation. The defendant insurers moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration in Hong Kong, citing arbitration clauses in their respective policies. The District Court granted the defendants' motions, finding the arbitration clauses to be broad and enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act and the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. The Court determined that all of CME's claims were subject to arbitration and, in accordance with Second Circuit precedent, stayed the proceedings pending arbitration in Hong Kong.

ArbitrationInternational ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActConvention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral AwardsBreach of ContractInsurance Coverage DisputeSecurities LitigationStay of ProceedingsMotion to Compel ArbitrationReceiver
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 11,767 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