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

Board of Trustees v. Parker (In Re Parker)

The Boards of Trustees of three Carpenters Benefit Funds filed an adversary complaint against David Parker, seeking to deny his bankruptcy discharge or declare certain debts nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727, 523(a)(4), and/or (a)(6). The debts stemmed from Parker Deco, Inc.'s (where Parker was President) failure to make contributions and remit union dues to the Benefit Funds per a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). A prior District Court judgment had been obtained against Parker Deco. During the trial, the Benefit Funds withdrew their § 523(a)(6) and § 727 claims, proceeding solely on § 523(a)(4). The court found that unpaid employer contributions did not constitute 'plan assets' under ERISA without explicit CBA language, thus Parker was not a fiduciary for those. For employee withholdings, the court found no larceny or embezzlement due to lack of fraudulent intent. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, finding the Benefit Funds failed to meet their burden of proof, and denied both parties' requests for attorney's fees.

Bankruptcy DischargeabilityERISA Fiduciary DutyDefalcationEmbezzlementUnpaid Employer ContributionsUnion Dues WithholdingsCollective Bargaining AgreementAdversary ProceedingBankruptcy Code Section 523(a)(4)Plan Assets
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Parker

Rufus Parker, an employee of Daniels Drilling Corporation, died from an injury sustained in December 1932. His parents, Frank and Clara Parker, filed for compensation with the Industrial Accident Board, which awarded them weekly payments and a lump sum. The Traders & General Insurance Company, the insurer, appealed this award, filing suit to set it aside and denying Parker's death resulted from employment injury. The jury found Parker was an employee of Daniels Drilling Corporation, and the court calculated weekly wages and rendered judgment for the Parkers. The insurance company appealed this judgment, but the appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence and no reversible errors in the trial proceedings or arguments.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployee StatusIndustrial Accident BoardInsurance LiabilityAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofJury InstructionsAdmissibility of EvidenceAttorney ArgumentDaily Wage Calculation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Marriage of Parker

Mark Patrick Parker, Sr. appealed a post-answer default judgment in his divorce case from Brenda May Parker, asserting that he did not receive the forty-five days' notice of trial required by Tex.R. Civ. P. 245. Despite receiving fourteen days' notice from his wife's attorney, Mark believed he would receive a formal notice from the court, which did not occur. The appellate court found that Mark's failure to appear was not due to intentional conduct or conscious indifference, as his actions stemmed from a reasonable, albeit mistaken, belief regarding the trial setting notice. Applying the first prong of the Craddock test, the court determined that Mark was entitled to a new trial. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

DivorcePost-Answer Default JudgmentNotice of TrialDue ProcessCraddock TestTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewRemandProcedural ErrorConscious Indifference
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Traders & General Insurance Company

Billie Jean Bell Parker and Mack O. Parker sought death benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Act following the accidental death of Henry E. Ford, alleging Billie Jean was Ford's adopted child and Ford was an employee of Coleman County Electric Cooperative, Inc., and/or Maxwell Drilling Company. The defendant insurance carriers disputed both the adoption and Ford's employment status. A jury found against adoption, but determined Ford was an employee of Coleman County Electric, Inc. and a borrowed employee of Maxwell Drilling Company. The trial court, however, disregarded the finding of Ford being a borrowed employee, ruling against the Parkers and in favor of the Industrial Accident Board against Traders & General Insurance Company. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error concerning the various points raised, including jury selection, witness testimony, and particularly upholding that Ford was an employee of Coleman County Electric Co-operative, Inc., and not a borrowed employee of Maxwell Drilling Company at the time of his death.

Adoption by EstoppelWorkmen's Compensation ActDeath BenefitsEmployer-Employee DisputeIndependent ContractorBorrowed EmployeeInsurance Coverage DisputeJury ChallengesJuror DisqualificationAdverse Witness Rule
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Enserch Corp.

This case involves Mary Jean Parker and others (collectively Parker) suing Enserch Corporation (d/b/a Lone Star Gas Company) and J.W. “Bill” Christie, Incorporated (Christie) for the wrongful deaths of Billy Joe Parker and Preston Edward Watson. The decedents, employees of Christie, died from a natural gas leak while working on a pipeline owned by Enserch. Parker appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Enserch, arguing issues of retained control by Enserch over Christie's work and the statute of limitations. Christie also appealed the summary judgment granted to Enserch on its indemnity claim, contending the indemnity agreement was unenforceable under Texas law, specifically regarding the express negligence rule and compliance with the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The appellate court reversed and remanded Parker's case, finding material fact issues regarding Enserch's duty of care and the statute of limitations. It also reversed the judgment against Christie, ruling that Christie did not expressly assume liability for injuries to its own employees, thus sustaining Christie's appeal on the workers' compensation bar.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilityRetained Control DoctrinePremises DefectStatute of LimitationsMisnomerMisidentificationIndemnity AgreementExpress Negligence Rule
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1994

Kern v. Frye Copysystems, Inc.

The case concerns William and Dorothy Kern's personal injury claims against Frye Copysystems, Inc. and Wheelabrator-Frye Co., stemming from an accident involving a rotary coating machine. The Kerns alleged negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability due to a defective design. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing immunity under Worker's Compensation Law, that the warranty claim was time-barred, and that strict liability was inapplicable. The court granted summary judgment on the breach of warranty and strict products liability claims, but denied it for the negligence claim against Copysystems, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding machine modifications and successor liability under the "Billy" exception to Worker's Compensation exclusivity.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityNegligenceBreach of WarrantySummary JudgmentSuccessor LiabilityWorker's Compensation LawDefective DesignMachine AccidentStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. ADJ6796881
Regular
Sep 12, 2011

Ted Parker vs. COUNTY OF KERN

This case concerns the apportionment of permanent disability for Ted Parker, a deputy sheriff injured in 2008. The County of Kern sought reconsideration of a $50\%$ permanent disability award, arguing the judge failed to properly apportion to a prior $20\%$ award for a 2006 injury. The Board granted reconsideration, agreeing that the initial calculation was incorrect. The WCJ's amended decision correctly apportions the prior disability, resulting in a revised award of $43\%$ permanent disability.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of KernTed ParkerDeputy Sherifflumbar spinepermanent disabilityapportionmentFindings of Fact and AwardWCJPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donald Parker v. Valerus Compression Services, LP

Donald Parker sued his employer Valerus Compression Services, LP for wrongful termination and retaliation after filing a workers' compensation claim due to a back injury. Valerus denied the allegations, stating Parker was terminated in accordance with its absentee policy after eight months of medical leave. The trial court granted Valerus's summary judgment motions, which Parker appealed. On appeal, Parker contended there was sufficient evidence for a prima facie case of retaliation and fact issues on causation and the 'cat's paw' theory. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Parker failed to raise a fact issue by not presenting evidence of similarly situated employees treated differently.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbsentee PolicySummary JudgmentCausal LinkDiscriminationMedical LeaveDr. James ShookJim NicholsonCat's Paw Theory
References
29
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Wenzel v. Nassau County Police Department

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. AP-77,110
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2025

PARKER, TAYLOR RENE v. the State of Texas

Taylor Rene Parker was convicted of capital murder for the killing of Reagan Hancock and the kidnapping of her unborn child, Braxlynn. Parker had faked a pregnancy to maintain her relationship with her boyfriend, leading her to brutally murder Hancock and perform a crude C-section to abduct the baby. Braxlynn was later pronounced dead. Parker was sentenced to death. On direct appeal, Parker raised twenty-five points of error, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for kidnapping or attempted kidnapping, the denial of a motion for change of venue, the denial of a motion for continuance, the admission of extraneous offense evidence, the admission of crime scene and autopsy photographs and video, statements made by prosecutors, and the testimony of the State’s penalty-phase experts. The Court of Criminal Appeals found no reversible error on any of the points and affirmed both the conviction and the sentence of death.

Capital MurderKidnappingFetal AbductionDeath PenaltySufficiency of EvidenceChange of VenueExtraneous OffensesProsecutorial MisconductExpert TestimonyPsychiatric Evaluation
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 168 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