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. 03-17-00534-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2018

Denise Stroup, as Legal Guardian of D. L. S., an Incapacitated Person v. MRM Management, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a personal injury car-crash case involving an incapacitated person, Douglas Lee Stroup (Appellant). Appellant sued Penny Harrington Taylor for negligence and MRM Management, Inc. (Appellee) for vicarious liability, alleging Taylor, a licensed real estate salesperson, was acting for MRM. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was granted, asserting Taylor was an independent contractor, thus negating vicarious liability. Appellant argues that the independent contractor agreement is void under the Texas Occupation Code, which assigns liability to brokers for their salespersons' tortious conduct. Furthermore, Appellant contends that MRM should be estopped from relying on the agreement, and that factual disputes exist regarding Taylor's employment status, joint-enterprise liability, and statutory vicarious liability under the Texas Occupations Code. Appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment, arguing sufficient evidence was presented to raise genuine issues of material fact for trial.

Personal InjuryCar CrashVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorReal Estate AgentReal Estate BrokerTexas Occupations CodeRespondeat SuperiorJoint EnterpriseSummary Judgment Appeal
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 1995

Rigopoulos v. State

Dimitrios Rigopoulos, an independent contractor, sustained injuries while painting a bridge from a floating barge. He and his wife, Victoria Rigopoulos, brought a claim for personal injuries against the State of New York, alleging violations of the Labor Law. The Court of Claims initially awarded damages to the claimants and granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the judgment was reversed. The appellate court ruled that the accident occurred on navigable waters and constituted traditional maritime activity, thus Federal maritime law applied. Consequently, Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes strict liability, was preempted. The case was remitted to the Court of Claims for a new determination on liability under Labor Law § 200 (1) and § 241 (6), which do not impose strict liability and are not preempted by Federal maritime law.

Personal InjuryFederal Maritime LawLabor Law PreemptionStrict LiabilityNegligenceAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentDamages AwardRemandBridge Maintenance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boles v. Dormer Giant, Inc.

This case addresses whether Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 shields an employer from third-party liability for contribution or indemnity when the employer failed to secure workers' compensation for an injured employee. Plaintiff Douglas Boles was injured in a scaffolding collapse while working for Personal Touch Home Improvements, Inc., a subcontractor of Dormer Giant, Inc. Boles sued Dormer Giant, which then brought a third-party action against Personal Touch. The lower courts dismissed Dormer Giant's third-party complaint, concluding Personal Touch was protected by Section 11. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that an employer must comply with Workers’ Compensation Law § 10 by securing compensation for employees to benefit from the protections of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 against third-party liability, reinforcing the legislative intent behind the 1996 Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act.

Workers’ Compensation Law § 11Employer LiabilityThird-Party ContributionThird-Party IndemnityGrave InjuryFailure to Secure Workers' CompensationLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffolding AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Bradshaw

This case focuses on determining the average weekly wage for plaintiff Gene Bradshaw to calculate workmen's compensation benefits. Bradshaw, an independent contractor for Champion International Corporation, was required to pay for workmen's compensation coverage through defendant American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, with premiums deducted from his pulpwood earnings. The core dispute arose from American Mutual's attempt to reduce Bradshaw's gross earnings by various expenses (labor, equipment, etc.) to calculate his average weekly wage, a method Bradshaw contested. The trial court and subsequently the appellate court affirmed that Bradshaw was entitled to maximum benefits, emphasizing that the insurance premiums were based on gross earnings and the statute did not differentiate between gross and net earnings for wage computation, thereby rejecting the proposed deductions. The court found that where it's impracticable to compute average weekly wages, it should consider what a person in similar employment in the same district would earn.

Workmen's CompensationAverage Weekly WageIndependent ContractorGross EarningsNet EarningsInsurance PremiumsStatutory InterpretationLiberal ConstructionTimber IndustryPulpwood Harvesting
References
2
Case No. 01-22-00313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

Team Industrial Services, Inc. v. Kelli Most, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse Henson

Kelli Most, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Jesse Henson, sued Team Industrial Services, Inc. for wrongful death and survival claims after Henson died from severe burns sustained in a steam release at a Kansas power plant. Most alleged Team was negligent in servicing pressure relief valves. The jury found Team 90% negligent and Westar (Henson's employer) 10% negligent, awarding Most $222 million in damages. On appeal, Team challenged the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and its refusal to apply Kansas law, which has limits on non-economic damages and different joint and several liability rules. The appellate court found that Kansas law should have been applied for proportionate responsibility and wrongful death damages caps, and that the jury's non-economic damages award was excessive due to improper arguments. The court also determined that all forum non conveniens factors favored dismissal to Kansas, vacating the judgment and dismissing the case.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionNegligence (Corporate)Forum Non ConveniensChoice of Law (Conflicts)Damages CapsComparative NegligenceExcessive DamagesAppellate Court DecisionIndustrial Safety
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Liability Ins. v. Mountain Valley Indemnity Co.

This diversity action involves an insurance dispute between plaintiffs United States Liability Insurance Co. (U.S. Liability) and Mobile Air Transport, Inc., and defendant Mountain Valley Indemnity Co. The conflict arose from a fatal truck accident involving a Mobile Air employee driving a truck leased from Leroy Holding Company, Inc. After an underlying personal injury action settled, U.S. Liability and Mountain Valley each paid $225,000 towards the remaining $450,000 portion of the settlement. The core disagreement is whether the Truck Lease Agreement, which designates Mobile Air's insurance as primary, or the specific 'other insurance' clauses within U.S. Liability's and Mountain Valley's respective policies, which would make Mountain Valley's coverage primary, should govern. Applying New York law, the court ruled that the insurance policy provisions take precedence over the lease agreement. Consequently, U.S. Liability's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Mountain Valley's cross-motion was denied, holding Mountain Valley liable for the entire $450,000 in dispute.

Insurance DisputePrimary vs Excess CoverageTruck Lease AgreementInsurance Policy InterpretationSummary JudgmentNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionIndemnificationSubrogationAutomobile Accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2001

Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund v. Thomasen Construction Co.

The case involved a dispute between the Mason Tenders District Council Welfare Fund and Mason Tenders District Council (plaintiffs) and Thomsen Construction Company, Inc., along with its owner, Stephen Thomsen (defendants). While Thomsen Construction conceded liability for failing to make contributions to the Funds, the central issue was whether Stephen Thomsen could be held personally liable. The court applied New York law concerning an agent's personal liability, which requires clear and explicit evidence of intent to assume personal liability, and considered factors such as contract negotiation and the signatory's role. The court found that the personal liability clause was not negotiated, and Thomsen signed in his official capacity as president, intending to avoid personal liability through incorporation. Consequently, the court ruled that Stephen Thomsen was not personally liable, entering judgment in his favor, although judgment was entered against Thomsen Construction, Inc.

Labor LawEmployee BenefitsERISALMRACorporate LiabilityPiercing the Corporate VeilContract LawAgency LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
6
Case No. 13-98-098-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2001

Marathon Corporation D/B/A Honda-Suzuki North v. Pitzner, John, a Mentally Incompetent Person, by and Through His Next Friend and Guardian, Steven Pitzner

John Pitzner, an HVAC repairman, suffered severe head trauma after falling from the roof of Marathon Corporation d/b/a Honda-Suzuki North while working on an air conditioning unit. Pitzner's guardian, Steven Pitzner, filed a personal injury lawsuit, alleging premises liability and negligence due to unsafe conditions, including units placed too close together, near the roof edge, an improperly placed gas line, and lack of a disconnect switch. A jury found Marathon 100% liable and awarded substantial damages. On appeal, Marathon challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence and disputed venue, evidentiary rulings, settlement credits, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, but modified it to apply a dollar-for-dollar settlement credit and recalculate prejudgment interest.

Premises LiabilityNegligencePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyVenue DisputeSettlement CreditsPrejudgment Interest CalculationDallas City Ordinances
References
80
Case No. M2009-02442-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Estate of David Holt Ralston, by John A. Ralston, Personal Representative v. Fred R. Hobbs

The personal representative of David Holt Ralston's estate filed an action to rescind twelve deeds executed by Fred R. Hobbs, the decedent's attorney-in-fact, without the decedent's knowledge and for no consideration. The properties were conveyed to Hobbs, his mother, and his daughter. The personal representative alleged breach of fiduciary duty. The trial court rescinded the conveyances for properties still owned by Hobbs and awarded monetary damages for properties transferred to innocent third parties. On appeal, Hobbs challenged the personal representative's standing, statute of limitations, the finding of fiduciary duty breach, and damage calculation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on all grounds, finding the personal representative had standing, the action was timely filed, and Hobbs breached his fiduciary duty by making unauthorized gifts not in line with the principal's gifting history.

Fiduciary DutyPower of AttorneyReal Property ConversionStatute of LimitationsDeed RescissionMonetary DamagesAppellate ReviewEstate LawUndue InfluenceAttorney-in-Fact Breach
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 1978

Pagano v. Colonial Sand & Gravel Co.

The plaintiff, an employee of a joint venture, sustained personal injuries from a fall off a scaffold. The plaintiff appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which dismissed the complaint against the respondents. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, without costs or disbursements. The decision noted that while Labor Law Section 240 mandates proper protection for employees using scaffolds, liability for such violations falls under the employer’s general liability as per Section 11 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. This latter law provides an exclusive remedy, superseding other liabilities.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentEmployee InjuryJoint VentureLabor LawWorkers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityExclusive RemedySupreme CourtAppellate Review
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 8,319 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