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. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1990

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Oduth Narine, an employee of Protection Systems Specialists, Inc., was injured while inspecting a ventilation system. Narine and his wife initiated a negligence action against his employer and co-employee Howard Handler, alleging failure to provide a safe workplace. The defendants sought summary judgment, claiming the suit was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, given Narine had already received benefits. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the order was modified; summary judgment was granted to Protection Systems Specialists, Inc. due to the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation benefits. However, the denial of summary judgment for Handler was affirmed, as questions of fact remained regarding his employment relationship.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCo-employee LiabilityFactual QuestionsAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySafe Place to Work
References
5
Case No. 01-07-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Bison Building Materials, Ltd., a nonsubscriber to the Workers' Compensation Act, established an employee injury plan with an arbitration clause. Employee Tracy Sambrano was injured, received benefits, but then sued Bison for negligence, despite signing a post-injury waiver. The trial court denied Bison's motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, the court held that Sambrano had accepted the arbitration terms by continued employment and that the Federal Arbitration Act preempted state laws that would prevent enforcement. Consequently, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to compel arbitration, finding Bison had not waived its right, and dismissed Sambrano's interlocutory appeal.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Texas General Arbitration Act (TGAA)Workers' Compensation NonsubscriberEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanERISA PreemptionMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealWaiver of ArbitrationContract Defenses
References
44
Case No. 11-15-00318-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Christopher Steven Painter appealed his sexual assault conviction, for which he was sentenced to ten years confinement. He raised five issues, challenging the sufficiency of evidence to prove force or lack of consent, the constitutionality of Texas Penal Code Section 22.011(b)(4), the admission of a SANE nurse's testimony, and the admission of the victim's mother's testimony. Painter also alleged a Brady violation due to withheld evidence. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed each issue, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, the challenged statute was constitutional, and the evidentiary admissions were not an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, the court ruled that the Brady claim was waived. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

Sexual AssaultCriminal ConvictionAppellate ReviewDue ProcessEqual ProtectionConstitutional LawHearsay EvidenceLay Opinion TestimonyBrady ViolationEvidence Sufficiency
References
43
Case No. 08-10-00082-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The State of Texas sued Cemex Construction Materials South, L.L.C. for conversion, breach of contract, and trespass to try title, asserting ownership of valuable building materials on four parcels of public school lands in El Paso County. The State claimed these mineral rights were reserved under the 1895 Land Sales and Mining Acts during original sales in 1900, 1906, and 1912. The trial court denied the State's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Cemex's motion. On appeal, the court reviewed the rulings de novo and found that the State unequivocally reserved mineral rights. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, granted the State's motion for partial summary judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mineral RightsPublic School LandsSummary JudgmentState of TexasConversion ClaimBreach of ContractMining Act of 1895Land Sales Act of 1895Real Property LawStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. 04-15-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2015

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Rhino Contractors, LLC, appeals a trial court's default judgment in favor of Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. Vulcan sued Rhino for breach of contract or on a sworn account, alleging Rhino failed to pay $454,846.76 for materials supplied for its construction business, plus 18% interest and attorney's fees. The default judgment included these amounts along with prejudgment interest and court costs. Rhino argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for new trial because it never received proper notice of the lawsuit, thus failing to file an answer. Rhino also asserts it has a meritorious defense, including claims of double billing and improper credits on invoices from Vulcan, and that granting a new trial would not prejudice Vulcan. Furthermore, Rhino contends the damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees awarded were unliquidated and not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence, as Vulcan's affidavit lacked an itemized account and its attorney's fee affidavit did not meet required evidentiary standards.

Default JudgmentBreach of ContractSworn AccountMotion for New TrialService of ProcessCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseDamagesPrejudgment InterestAttorney's Fees
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1987

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Plaintiffs Abby Jo Guss and Martha Ensor initiated a civil rights action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Frank Painter, operating Mountaineer Restaurant, alleging discriminatory discharge due to pregnancy. The defendant claimed the plaintiffs were fired for being poor and unreliable workers, denying pregnancy as the reason. The Court found that both plaintiffs established a prima facie case of sex discrimination, concluding that their pregnancies directly influenced the defendant's decision to terminate their employment and that the defendant's stated reasons were merely pretextual. Despite the Court finding that both plaintiffs failed to fully mitigate their damages, judgment was entered in their favor. Marsha Ensor was awarded $2,532.11 and Abby Guss received $2,973.60, along with costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

Employment DiscriminationPregnancy Discrimination ActTitle VII Civil Rights ActDisparate TreatmentPretext for DiscriminationBack Pay AwardMitigation of DamagesPrima Facie CaseFederal Court RulingWrongful Termination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The claimant, an operating manager for Interstate Materials Corporation, suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knees in August 2006 and a second lower back injury in April 2008. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially classified the claimant with a permanent total disability and struck the independent medical examiner's report. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the IME report improperly precluded due to the examiner's hospitalization and reclassified the claimant with a permanent partial disability, equally apportioned between the two accidents. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in considering the IME report and that substantial evidence supported both the permanent partial disability classification and the equal apportionment of the disability.

Permanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardApportionment of DisabilityMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Cross-Examination RightsAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Peckham Materials Corporation, in a wrongful death action. The plaintiff's decedent, John S. Peckham, was killed in a helicopter crash while a passenger in a company-owned helicopter. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, striking the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The Appellate Division reversed the order, holding that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of compensation benefits. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court with instructions to defer the motion's disposition until the Workers' Compensation Board makes a final determination regarding the plaintiff's eligibility for benefits.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHelicopter AccidentEmployer LiabilityJudicial DeferenceRemittalEstate Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves an appeal by MEMC Electronic Materials and MEMC Pasadena (collectively MEMC) challenging a trial court's order. The order granted partial summary judgment to Albemarle Corporation and denied MEMC's cross-motion for partial summary judgment. Albemarle sought indemnification from MEMC for payments made to Ethyl Corporation, which had indemnified Ethyl for claims arising from a plant fire. MEMC argued that their Asset Purchase Agreement (APA) with Albemarle did not obligate them to indemnify Albemarle for this specific liability, citing clauses concerning assumed obligations, non-disclosure of the Ethyl-Albemarle indemnity agreement, and the timing of the liability's origin. The court analyzed Sections 3.4, 4.16, and 7.4 of the APA, ultimately concluding that MEMC had not assumed the obligation for the Ethyl-Albemarle indemnity agreement. It found that the payment made by Albemarle to Ethyl arose from a prior contractual relationship, not from operations of the plant on or after the closing date of the APA between MEMC and Albemarle. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment in favor of MEMC.

Contract InterpretationIndemnification AgreementAsset Purchase AgreementSummary JudgmentTexas LawVirginia LawCorporate LiabilityPre-existing ContractsPost-closing OperationsAffiliate Agreements
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,113 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