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. 02-23-00271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Russell Scott Donaldson, as Next Friend of His Grandchildren: L.A., R.A., A.A. and R.S.A., the Heirs of Robert John Aquino, III v. Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc.

Robert John Aquino, III, sued his employer, Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc., for premises liability and employment-related negligence after sustaining an injury from a nail at a worksite. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment on the premises liability claim and a take-nothing judgment on all claims, despite the motion only addressing premises liability. Aquino's heirs, through their next friend, appealed, contending that evidence existed to create a fact issue on the premises liability claim and that the judgment on the negligence claim exceeded the scope of the motion. The appellate court found that Aquino's deposition testimony provided more than a scintilla of evidence that Pro-Craft's crew created the dangerous condition, thus supporting an inference of knowledge. Additionally, the court ruled that the summary judgment on the negligence claim was erroneous as it was not addressed in the underlying motion. The trial court's summary judgment was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Premises LiabilityEmployment NegligenceSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence MotionDangerous ConditionEmployer LiabilityTexas Appellate LawAppellate ReviewCase ReversalCase Remand
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brock v. Mack Trucks, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a settlement from a product liability action, specifically regarding the entitlement of the plaintiff's attorneys to a pro rata share of counsel fees from the Special Disability Fund. In the original settlement, plaintiff Leonard Brock assigned claims against the Fund to his attorneys, Pattison, Sampson, Ginsberg & Griffin, P. C., while Liberty Mutual Insurance Company waived its workers' compensation lien. Supreme Court initially ruled that Liberty Mutual's lien waiver precluded any further claims against the Fund for attorney fees. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the Special Disability Fund benefited from the plaintiff's litigation by being relieved of its liability to Liberty Mutual for payments after 104 weeks of disability. Consequently, the Fund is liable for a pro rata share of the litigation expenses, and the matter was remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings to determine this benefit.

Product LiabilityWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundAttorney FeesSettlement AgreementLien WaiverPro Rata ShareReimbursementAppellate ReviewUnjust Enrichment
References
2
Case No. 09-21-00178-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

L&S Pro-Line, LLC and Lee Burkett v. Garrett Gagliano, Snook Holdings, LLC, and Tactical Automation, Inc.

This case involves a business dispute of a two-member Texas limited liability company, L&S Pro-Line (L&S). Appellants, L&S and Lee Burkett, appealed the trial court’s judgments for Appellees Garrett Gagliano, Snook Holdings, LLC, and Tactical Automation, Inc. The core issues included Burkett's attempt to purchase Gagliano's membership interest under the Company Agreement and Tactical Automation's standing as a third-party beneficiary. The Court of Appeals concluded that Burkett effectively exercised his option to buy Gagliano's interest and that Tactical Automation was not an intended third-party beneficiary. The court affirmed certain portions, reversed and rendered others (particularly concerning breach of contract and Tactical's damages), and reversed and remanded for further proceedings on issues like breach of fiduciary duty prior to the effective buyout.

Business DisputeLimited Liability CompanyMembership Interest BuyoutBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate LawSummary JudgmentCorporate GovernancePartnership Dispute
References
59
Case No. ADJ2678977 (VNO 0516619) ADJ2789939 (VNO 0516618)
Regular
Jul 26, 2017

THOMAS BELLISSIMO vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, AIG

This case involves two insurers, Zurich and AIG, disputing liability for a worker's cumulative trauma injury. The Arbitrator initially set the liability period as July 4, 2004, to July 3, 2005, and apportioned fault based on days worked. Both insurers sought reconsideration, with AIG challenging the date of injury and allocation method, and Zurich arguing for apportionment based on exposure arduousness. The Board affirmed the Arbitrator's pro rata allocation based on days worked, but amended the liability period to June 28, 2004, to June 28, 2005, based on the last date of injurious exposure.

Labor Code section 5500.5cumulative trauma injuryliability periodapportionmentpro ratadate of injuryLabor Code section 5412disabilityinjurious exposuresuccessive employers
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. 2022-01-0054
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2023

Espinosa, Rodolfo v. Maestro’s Pro Services, LLC

Laura Estrella de Espinosa sought death benefits following the passing of her husband, Rodolfo Espinosa, who died from heatstroke while employed by Maestro’s Pro Services, LLC. The employer, being uninsured for workers’ compensation, did not appear at the hearing. Mrs. Espinosa testified regarding her husband’s work and the circumstances leading to his death. However, the Court concluded that she failed to meet her burden of proof by not providing expert medical testimony establishing that her husband's death arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, specifically that the work-related cause contributed more than fifty percent. Consequently, the Court denied the requested benefits, though it did tax the filing fee against Maestro’s Pro Services.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHeatstrokeCardiac ArrestMedical CausationBurden of ProofUninsured EmployerEmployee DeathTennessee LawFactual Insufficiency
References
0
Case No. NO. 12-09-00283-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2011

the Glidden Company D/B/A ICI Paints, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. CDNE, Inc. D/B/A All Pro Services, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

The Glidden Company appealed a trial court judgment awarding CDNE, Inc. damages for defective paint and attorney's fees, while All Pro Services cross-appealed regarding Glidden's award. The primary dispute centered on interpreting the 1582 Agreement concerning reimbursement for remediation costs incurred due to failed paint. The appellate court found the term 'costs' ambiguous and upheld the trial court's decision that All Pro Services was entitled to reimbursement at a rate of $32.50 per hour, including overtime. The court also affirmed that Glidden had effectively disclaimed consequential damages and that the replacement paint was not provided free of charge. However, the court reversed and remanded the case for reconsideration of Glidden's attorney's fees.

Contract InterpretationBreach of ContractConsequential DamagesAttorney's FeesContract AmbiguityReimbursementOvertime WagesDisclaimer ClauseSales AgreementPainting Contract
References
59
Case No. 07-15-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2016

Mohammed Fawwaz Shoukfeh, M.D., P.A., D/B/A Texas Cardiac Center v. James G. Grattan and Texas Workforce Commission

Dr. Grattan filed a wage claim against Mohammed Fawwaz Shoukfeh, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Texas Cardiac Center (TCC) under the Texas Payday Act, alleging miscalculation of his pro rata share of overhead expenses. The dispute arose because TCC included Dr. Qaddour's salary in overhead but excluded him from the pro rata division among physicians for expense calculation. After various appeals, the Texas Workforce Commission ultimately awarded Dr. Grattan $125,988.81 in unpaid wages. TCC then sought a trial de novo, where the 99th District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Grattan and the TWC. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was substantial evidence that Dr. Grattan's employment agreement did not permit TCC to deduct more than a pro rata share based on all physicians employed.

Wage claimTexas Payday ActEmployment agreementOverhead expensesPro rata shareSummary judgmentAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceContract interpretationPhysician compensation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1990

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Insurance Co. of North America

This case concerns an action by an insurer to recover a pro rata contribution from a co-insurer for a settlement paid in a personal injury action. The underlying personal injury suit involved an injured employee against site owners, who then filed a third-party claim against the employer. The plaintiff insurer covered the employer's workers' compensation and employer's liability policies, while the defendant was a co-insurer on the employer's liability policy with an exclusion for employee injuries. The court found the exclusion ambiguous and ruled against the defendant on this point. However, the court also determined that the defendant was not liable for a waived workers' compensation lien as a matter of law, modifying the initial judgment to dismiss the second cause of action.

Insurance DisputePro Rata ContributionSettlementPersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationEmployer's LiabilityExclusion ClauseAmbiguitySummary JudgmentAppellate Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 5,707 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