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. 08-00-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

SCM Management, Inc./Manuela Ortiz v. Ortiz, Manuela/SCM Management, Inc.

Manuela Ortiz, a housekeeper, sued SCM Management, Inc. for wrongful discharge under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, alleging retaliation for her intent to file a worker's compensation claim due to worsening hand pain. A jury found in favor of Ortiz, awarding damages for lost wages and mental anguish, but the trial court excluded exemplary damages. SCM appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish. Ortiz cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish, but agreed that there was insufficient evidence for exemplary damages.

Worker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawMental AnguishExemplary DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceLost WagesMitigation of DamagesTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. No. M2018-01696-COA-R3-CV; No. 15-4-IV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2020

American Board of Craniofacial Pain v. American Board Of Orofacial Pain

This case involves an appeal concerning a failed merger between two professional dental associations, American Board of Craniofacial Pain (ABCP) and American Board of Orofacial Pain (ABOP). ABCP sued ABOP, alleging a breach of an agreement to merge formed through email exchanges and seeking specific performance and damages. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted summary judgment to ABOP, finding no meeting of the minds and thus no enforceable contract. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this decision, concluding that the parties’ objective manifestations showed a lack of mutual assent because an essential term (disposition of intellectual property) was not agreed upon and they intended to reduce the agreement to a formal Memorandum of Understanding, which was never finalized. The court also agreed that specific performance was not an available remedy due to the incompleteness of the purported contract.

Contract DisputeMerger NegotiationsCorporate MergerDental ProfessionMutual AssentSpecific Performance DenialSummary Judgment AffirmationTennessee Court of AppealsContract FormationLack of Agreement
References
26
Case No. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
Case No. 07-12-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2013

Wendell H. Taylor v. Lubbock Regional MHMR & JI Texas Risk Management and Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers' Compensation

Wendell H. Taylor, an employee of Lubbock Regional MHMR, sustained a compensable injury in 2009. His subsequent claim for chronic pain and related conditions was denied by the Workers' Compensation Division's appeals panel. Taylor filed suit in district court seeking judicial review and alleging intentional torts, bad faith, and other claims against MHMR, JI Specialty Services, Texas Council Risk Management Fund, and the Division. The trial court dismissed most of Taylor's claims against all defendants based on a lack of jurisdiction and governmental immunity. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissals for MHMR, the Risk Management Fund, and the Division, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and sovereign/governmental immunity for tort claims. However, the court reversed the dismissal against JI Specialty Services, Inc., concluding it had not established its claim to governmental immunity. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding JI Specialty Services.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTort ClaimsAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionSelf-insured EntityThird-Party Administrator LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTexas Appeals Court
References
28
Case No. 07-12-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2013

Wendell H. Taylor v. Lubbock Regional MHMR & JI Texas Risk Management and Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers' Compensation

Wendell H. Taylor appealed the trial court's dismissal of portions of his suit against Lubbock Regional MHMR, JI Specialty Services, Inc., Texas Council Risk Management Fund, and Texas Department of Insurance-Workers' Compensation Division. Taylor sustained a compensable injury while employed by MHMR and sought to extend his injury claim to include chronic pain and other conditions, which the appeals panel denied. He subsequently sued in district court, alleging intentional tortious acts, altering medical records, and bad faith treatment, alongside seeking judicial review and lifetime healthcare benefits. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Taylor's claims against MHMR, the Risk Management Fund, and the Workers' Compensation Division due to a lack of jurisdiction and governmental immunity for tort claims. However, it reversed the dismissal against JI Specialty Services, Inc., finding its claim of governmental immunity was not supported by the record and remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGovernmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesIntentional TortsAppeals Panel DecisionSelf-insured EntityThird-party AdministratorRisk Management Fund
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

STATE OFFICE OF RISK MANAGEMENT v. Allen

Jerome D. Allen, a juvenile correction officer, was injured in March 2004 during employment. The State Office of Risk Management (SORM), administrator of workers' compensation, accepted head and shoulder injuries but disputed a lower back injury. A contested case hearing and subsequent appeals panel both found Allen's compensable injury extended to his lower back. SORM sought judicial review, and a jury also found in Allen's favor. SORM appealed, arguing the trial court erred in admitting hearsay evidence (a hearing officer's decision and order) and that the verdict was factually insufficient. The appellate court found any error in admitting the decision and order harmless, as the evidence was cumulative and also presented through SORM's own expert witness. The court also found the evidence factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict, noting Allen's testimony about new back pain symptoms post-injury and the compensability of aggravating a pre-existing condition. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewHearsay EvidenceFactual SufficiencyJury VerdictCompensable InjuryLower Back InjuryPre-existing ConditionMedical RecordsChiropractor Testimony
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00302 [135 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2016

Domaszowec v. Residential Management Group LLC

Plaintiff Tracy Domaszowec's decedent died from a fall while cleaning a window on the 13th floor of an apartment building. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Residential Management Group LLC and 40 Fifth Avenue Corporation (40 Fifth defendants), the building owner and manager. The court found the decedent was engaged in "commercial window washing," thereby making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 202 against Veronica Bulgari and Stephen Haimo due to lack of exclusive control, and common-law negligence claims against T&L Contracting of N.Y., Inc. and Greenpoint Woodworking Inc. due to the lack of an exception to the contractual obligation rule. Issues of fact precluded summary judgment on negligence claims against Panorama Windows, Ltd., and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable to certain defendants.

Window cleaner fatalityScaffold LawSummary judgment appealAppellate Division First DepartmentCommercial vs. routine window washingLabor Law applicabilityContractual tort liabilityRes ipsa loquitur in negligencePunitive damages dismissalExpert witness evidence
References
8
Case No. 08-06-00124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2008

Carol G. Simpson v. State Office of Risk Management

Carol G. Simpson, an adjudicator for the Texas Workforce Commission, developed pain in her upper extremities from repetitive typing, leading to diagnoses of tenosynovitis and carpal tunnel syndrome by Dr. Robert Bell. Her worker's compensation claim was initially approved by a hearing officer and the TWCC Appeals Panel, but the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) successfully appealed to a district court, where a jury found against Simpson. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found the evidence legally insufficient to support the jury's finding that Simpson did not sustain a repetitive trauma injury in the course and scope of her employment. The court therefore reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment affirming the TWCC Appeals Panel's decision in favor of Simpson.

Workers' CompensationRepetitive Trauma InjuryOccupational DiseaseTenosynovitisCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSufficiency of EvidenceMedical Expert TestimonyErgonomicsTexas Labor CodeAppeal
References
4
Case No. No. 02-10-00291-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Chesser v. LIFECARE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Curtis Chesser, through his spouse and power of attorney Ava Chesser, sued LifeCare Management Services (LMS) and LifeCare Hospitals of North Texas (Hospital) for health care liability. After Chesser suffered a mild stroke, he was transferred to Hospital where a PEG tube was surgically inserted. The tube's bolster was too tight, leading to severe pain, tissue necrosis, hemorrhage, cardiac arrest, cerebral injury, and permanent cognitive deficits. A jury found for Chesser. The Court of Appeals sustained Chesser's issue that no evidence supported the negligence of three settling doctors, modifying the judgment to apply a dollar-for-dollar settlement credit of $183,000. It also sustained Appellees' challenge to the jury's joint enterprise finding, removing joint and several liability for LMS and making it severally liable for 30% of the judgment. Furthermore, the court modified the judgment to impose several liability on Hospital and LMS for their respective $250,000 noneconomic damage awards, affirming the trial court's judgment as modified.

Health Care LiabilityMedical NegligencePEG Tube ProcedureJoint EnterpriseVicarious LiabilityComparative ResponsibilitySettlement CreditNoneconomic DamagesPrejudgment InterestStatutory Caps
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1993

Olsen v. We'll Manage, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal by We'll Manage, Inc. from an order denying its cross motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiff Gary Olsen under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. We'll Manage, Inc. contended that Olsen was its special employee, providing evidence of direct supervision, work assignments, the right to fire him, and payment signed by its personnel, despite his wages being drawn from a general employer's account. The court found this established a special employment relationship. As Olsen received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, he is statutorily barred from maintaining an action against the special employer. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted We'll Manage, Inc.'s cross motion, and dismissed the complaint against the appellant.

Special EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarSummary JudgmentLabor LawDirect SupervisionControlAffidavitDeposition TestimonyGeneral EmployerAppellate Reversal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,425 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