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. No. 91-16599-B
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. Personnel Services, Inc.

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Facility ("Facility") sued Personnel Services, Inc. ("PSI"), an employee leasing company, alleging that PSI misrepresented its employer status to procure lower workers’ compensation insurance rates for its client companies. The trial court found PSI misrepresented its status but issued a take-nothing judgment, citing the affirmative defenses of waiver, ratification, and estoppel. On appeal, the court examined whether the Facility had sufficient specific knowledge of PSI's fraud to bar recovery. The appellate court concluded that the Facility's general awareness of the staff leasing industry was insufficient to establish specific knowledge of PSI's misrepresentations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a determination of damages on the Facility’s fraud claim.

fraudworkers' compensation insuranceemployee leasingmisrepresentationexperience modifieraffirmative defenseswaiverratificationestoppelemployer status
References
13
Case No. 2015-06-1276
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2016

Carlton, Christina v. Wood Personnel Services

Christina D. Carlton filed a Request for Expedited Hearing against Wood Personnel Services and its carrier, Key Risk Ins. Co., seeking workers' compensation benefits for a right wrist injury sustained on October 13, 2015, while working as a warehouse clerk. The primary issue was the compensability of her injury, while a secondary issue concerned entitlement to temporary partial disability benefits. The Court determined that Ms. Carlton provided sufficient evidence to likely prevail on the compensability of her injury, ordering Wood Personnel Services to authorize Dr. N.K. Singh for reasonable and necessary medical treatment. However, her request for temporary disability benefits was denied, as the employer was justified in refusing her return to light duty due to documented misconduct, including an outburst and refusal to sign a light duty agreement. The matter is set for an Initial Hearing on August 5, 2016.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityEmployee MisconductRight Wrist InjuryCausationMedical OpinionTennesseeWork Injury
References
4
Case No. 2019-02-0551
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2021

Maples, David ( McClain, Codi) v. Professional Personnel Services

This case involves Codi McClain, son of deceased employee David Maples, seeking death benefits from Professional Personnel Services and American Zurich. Mr. Maples died on December 16, 2017, after a work-related fall. Although funeral expenses were voluntarily paid by Professional Personnel, the claim for death benefits was later denied by American Zurich. McClain filed a Petition for Benefit Determination on November 18, 2019, almost two years after Mr. Maples's death. Professional Personnel Services filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that McClain failed to file within the one-year statute of limitations. The Court determined that McClain's reason for the late filing (difficulty hiring an attorney) was insufficient to toll the statute. Consequently, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing McClain's claim with prejudice.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDeath BenefitsTimeliness of FilingWorkers' Compensation ClaimMotion to DismissLegal ProcedureAppellate RightsCourt of Workers’ Compensation ClaimsPrejudice Dismissal
References
1
Case No. 2015-02-0217
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2016

Arciga, Nohemi v. AtWork Personnel Services

Nohemi Arciga, the employee, appealed the trial court's decision regarding her work-related right shoulder injury. The trial court had ordered the employer, At Work Personnel Services, to reinstate medical benefits but denied temporary disability benefits. Arciga argued that her lay testimony sufficiently proved medical causation. However, the Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's finding, stating that expert medical evidence was necessary to establish causation to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, and lay testimony alone was insufficient, especially given the lack of a complete record on appeal. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings.

workers' compensationmedical causationtemporary disability benefitsexpedited hearingburden of proofexpert medical evidencelay testimonyshoulder injuryAppeals Boardmedical benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beneficial Personnel Services of Texas, Inc. v. Rey

Ramon Rey, an oil field worker, sued Beneficial Personnel Services of Texas, Inc. (BPS) and Business Staffing, Inc. (BSI) after suffering a back injury. Rey's original employer, White Well Service, transitioned its employees to BPS/BSI, an employee leasing company, with promises of equivalent workers' compensation benefits. However, after Rey's injury, BPS/BSI significantly underpaid his benefits, delayed necessary surgery, and used an unlicensed insurance carrier. The jury found BPS committed fraud and that BPS and BSI operated as a single business enterprise, awarding Rey actual and exemplary damages, along with damages for mental anguish and damage to credit reputation. The trial court affirmed the judgment against both defendants, and this opinion upholds that decision, finding sufficient evidence for fraud, exemplary damages, and mental anguish, and that single business enterprise theory is a valid means of imposing tort liability.

Fraudulent InducementWorkers' Compensation PolicySingle Business Enterprise TheoryEmployee Leasing CompanyExemplary Damages AwardMental Anguish RecoveryCredit Reputation InjuryBreach of Employment ContractCorporate Veil PiercingUnlicensed Insurance Carrier
References
43
Case No. M2011-02746-COA-R3-CV / 1018991
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2012

Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. v. Tennessee Department of Commerce

This case involves a dispute between Advantage Personnel Consultants, Inc. (insured) and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (insurer) regarding the proper classification of employees for workers' compensation insurance premiums. Advantage disputed Liberty's reclassification of its employees from 'manufacture of small tools' (3113) to 'machine shop' (3632), and later to 'construction or agricultural machinery mfg.' (3507) for employees working at TAG Manufacturing Company. Advantage contended the correct classification was 'boilermaking' (3620). The Department of Commerce and Insurance ruled in favor of the insurer (Liberty), classifying the work as 3507, which was affirmed by the Chancery Court for Davidson County and subsequently by the Court of Appeals, finding substantial and material evidence to support the Commissioner's decision.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ClassificationEmployee ClassificationPremium AuditAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMaterial EvidenceStatutory InterpretationCode Classification
References
7
Case No. 09-20-00185-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2020

in Re FW Services, Inc. D/B/A Pacesetter Personnel Services

FW Services, Inc., operating as Pacesetter Personnel Services, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate an order denying a plea to the jurisdiction and abate a personal injury suit. The suit was filed by Pacesetter's employee, Anthony Snowden, who alleged negligence against Pacesetter and a co-employee, Joshua Dancurtis Franklin. Pacesetter argued that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy and required abatement until the workers' compensation proceedings before the DWC concluded. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court abused its discretion by not abating the negligence suit while the DWC had active jurisdiction over the workers' compensation claim. Consequently, the petition for writ of mandamus was conditionally granted.

MandamusAbatementWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyPlea to JurisdictionPersonal InjuryScope of EmploymentTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewOriginal Proceeding
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. 2019-06-1523
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2020

Williams, John v. All-Star Personnel, Inc.

This scheduling order from the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims outlines key deadlines for the case of John Williams v. All-Star Personnel, Inc., and Benchmark Ins. Co. The contested issues include medical, temporary, and permanent disability benefits, as well as compensability. Discovery is set to conclude with lay witness depositions by January 31, 2021, and expert witness depositions by March 12, 2021. A post-discovery mediation is scheduled for March 30, 2021. The compensation hearing is set for April 15, 2021, in Nashville, Tennessee. The order also mandates the submission of stipulations, witness and exhibit lists, and prehearing briefs before the compensation hearing. Failure to comply with these deadlines may result in referral to the Penalty/Compliance Division as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-118.

SchedulingDiscoveryMediationCompensation HearingDeadlinesNon-complianceWorkers' CompensationEmployee BenefitsEmployer LiabilityInsurer
References
0
Case No. 2015-02-0387
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2017

Hensley, Jeffrey Chad Hensley (Deceased) v. Professional Personnel Services

Mr. Jeffrey Chad Hensley suffered a fatal work-related injury. His surviving spouse, Tabitha Hensley, and minor child, Kaydence Hensley, both filed petitions for death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Judge denied Tabitha Hensley's claim, finding she was voluntarily living apart from the deceased at the time of his death and was not financially dependent. However, Kaydence Hensley, who was nine years old at the time of the hearing, was found to be wholly dependent on her deceased father. The court ordered Professional Personnel Services to pay Kaydence Hensley accrued and ongoing weekly death benefits, managed by her court-appointed custodians, with a portion allocated for attorney fees.

Death BenefitsWorkers' CompensationDependency BenefitsSurviving SpouseMinor ChildVoluntary SeparationCustody OrderAttorney FeesCompensation HearingTennessee Law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 12,234 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