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

May v. Apache Corp.

Plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit in a Texas state court, alleging state law claims related to property damage from the defendants' oil and gas operations. After later discovering contamination, they amended their complaint to include claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Texas Water Code. Subsequently, the defendants removed the case to a federal district court, citing the federal CERCLA claim. The district court, presided over by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, ruled on the plaintiffs' motion to remand. The court denied the remand for the CERCLA claims due to exclusive federal jurisdiction but granted the remand for the state law claims, sending them back to the Nueces County state court. This partial remand was based on factors such as differing trial procedures (bench vs. jury) and the predominance of distinct state law issues.

CERCLATexas Water CodeRemoval JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionRemandState Law ClaimsFederal QuestionOil and Gas OperationsEnvironmental ContaminationProperty Damage
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yonkers Electric Contracting Corp. v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood Electrical Workers'

This case involves a dispute between Yonkers Electric Contracting Corporation and Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood Electrical Workers’ AFL-CIO regarding a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) and its arbitration clause. The Union filed a grievance alleging violations of hiring provisions, but failed to adhere to the PLA's multi-step grievance procedure. A New York Supreme Court judge had previously stayed arbitration due to the Union's procedural non-compliance. Subsequently, the Union initiated a new grievance concerning the same alleged violations and sought to compel arbitration in federal court after removing the case from state court. The federal court, presided over by Judge McMahon, determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as the federal action effectively sought to review or overturn the prior state court decision. The court found the new grievance concerned issues "inextricably intertwined" with the prior state court ruling. Consequently, the federal court granted Yonkers Electric's motion to remand the case back to the New York Supreme Court.

Rooker-Feldman doctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionRemandArbitration AgreementProject Labor AgreementGrievance ProcedureFederalismState Court Judgment ReviewLabor Management Relations ActCollateral Attack
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cedillo v. Valcar Enterprises & Darling Delaware Co.

Plaintiff Agripin Cedillo sued defendant Valcar Enterprises & Darling Delaware Company, Inc. in Texas state court, alleging discrimination based on age, handicap, national origin, and retaliation for a workers' compensation claim. An amended petition introduced a federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) claim, prompting Valcar to remove the case to federal court. Cedillo moved to remand, arguing the removal was untimely and that 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) precluded removal of workers' compensation claims. The court found the removal timely and ruled that § 1445(c) is a procedural limitation, not a jurisdictional bar, allowing federal courts to hear such claims. Consequently, the court denied Cedillo's motion to remand.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAge DiscriminationFederal Question JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionRemovabilityTexas LawADEAMotion to RemandDistrict Court
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephens v. LJ PARTNERS

Plaintiff filed an action in state court against Defendants Drake Leddy and LJ Partners, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), among other claims, stemming from a dispute over compensation for work performed under a SAMDA contract. Defendants removed the case to federal court, citing original subject matter jurisdiction over the FLSA claim and supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for remand, arguing for discretionary remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and § 1441(c). The District Court denied the motion for remand, holding that it lacked discretion to remand federal causes of action and found that remanding state law claims would not promote economy, convenience, or fairness given their close relation to the federal FLSA claim.

Federal Question JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionMotion to RemandFair Labor Standards ActRemoval JurisdictionDistrict Court DecisionContract DisputeEmployment LawJudicial DiscretionBexar County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKay v. Point Shipping Corp.

The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (Union) filed a motion to remand an action previously removed to federal court by Point Vail Company. The Union sought to confirm an arbitrator's award against Point Vail and Point Shipping Corporation regarding a collective bargaining agreement dispute. Point Vail opposed the remand, claiming Point Shipping was fraudulently joined, thus obviating its need to consent to removal. The District Court found no evidence of fraudulent joinder, noting that the Union sought relief against Point Shipping, whose potential liability was substantial despite an indemnity agreement. Consequently, the court ruled the removal petition defective due to Point Shipping's non-joinder and ordered the case remanded to the New York Supreme Court, while denying the Union's request for litigation fees.

Remand MotionFraudulent JoinderRemoval JurisdictionArbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal CourtState CourtIndemnity AgreementUnion Dispute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas County v. Logan, Roy

This case is an interlocutory appeal where Dallas County challenges the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Roy Logan. Initially, the appellate court affirmed the denial, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, clarifying that all immunity grounds, even if newly raised on appeal, must be considered. On remand, the court evaluates Dallas County's arguments concerning whether Logan reported violations to an 'appropriate law enforcement authority' and if his reports were made in 'good faith,' encompassing both subjective and objective elements. The court concludes that the investigators hired by Dallas County were not considered part of a governmental entity under the Whistleblower Act. Due to Logan not having a full opportunity to address newly raised jurisdictional issues regarding objective good faith in the trial court, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court guidance, the case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Whistleblower ActGovernmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Government CodeObjective Good FaithSubjective Good FaithLaw Enforcement AuthorityRetaliation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harry Williams v. William H. Nealon, M.D., and Eric M. Walser, M.D.

Harry Williams sued Drs. William H. Nealon and Erie M. Walser for health care liability after his pancreas was injured during a diagnostic procedure. The doctors moved to dismiss under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 101.106(f), arguing the suit was based on conduct within their employment scope and could have been brought against their employer, UTMB. Williams challenged the statute, claiming it violated the Open Courts provision of the Texas Constitution. The trial court dismissed the action, and this Court's initial reversal was overturned by the Texas Supreme Court after its decision in Franka v. Velasquez. On remand, this Court considered Williams's Open Courts challenge and, in alignment with Supreme Court precedent, affirmed that § 101.106(f)'s restriction is a reasonable exercise of police power, aiming to narrow issues, reduce delay, and prevent duplicative litigation. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal of the case was affirmed.

Remand DecisionOpen Courts ProvisionTexas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityMedical MalpracticeScope of EmploymentDismissal MotionConstitutional ChallengeSovereign Immunity WaiverHealth Care Liability
References
13
Case No. 2014-06-0069
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2015

Johnson, Eden v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

Employee Eden Johnson, a door greeter, sustained injuries when a customer assaulted her after Johnson attempted to prevent the customer from using a motorized shopping cart. Wal-Mart denied the claim, asserting Johnson violated its violence-free workplace policy and subsequently terminated her. The trial court partially granted Johnson's request for medical and temporary disability benefits, rejecting Wal-Mart's willful misconduct defense and denying its motion to dismiss for procedural reasons. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the injury arose out of and in the course and scope of employment and that Johnson did not violate the employer's policy. The case was remanded for further necessary proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealsWillful Misconduct DefenseViolence-Free Workplace PolicyCourse and Scope of EmploymentAssault in WorkplaceExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsDoor Greeter InjuryMotorized Shopping Cart Incident
References
15
Case No. Docket No. 2014-02-0064, State File No. 98848-2014
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2015

Hadzic, Admir v. Averitt Express

This interlocutory appeal concerns employee Admir Hadzic, a truck driver, who sought medical and temporary disability benefits for injuries sustained while lifting a cooler into his work truck. The employer, Averitt Express, denied the claim, asserting the injury was not work-related. The trial court denied benefits but controversially ruled that an affidavit was not required for an expedited hearing if the employee testified. The Appeals Board, upon review, determined that Tennessee regulations mandate affidavits for all expedited hearing motions, regardless of subsequent testimony. Consequently, the Board vacated the trial court's decision, finding it legally unsupported, and remanded the case for further proceedings. This ruling emphasizes strict adherence to procedural rules for efficient dispute resolution in workers' compensation claims.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealExpedited HearingAffidavit RequirementRegulatory InterpretationStatutory ConstructionProcedural RulesRemandVacatedEmployee Benefits
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Foreman

This case, an opinion after remand and second rehearing, involves a worker's compensation claim for an alleged back injury resulting in total permanent disability. The Chief Justice, following a Supreme Court remand, finds the jury's verdict for the plaintiff (appellee) to be against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. Numerous defense witnesses testified they did not observe the alleged injury or any symptoms from the plaintiff, who also failed to disclose it to doctors or employers at relevant times, despite claiming severe pain. The court notes the plaintiff had a prior similar injury and refused to release medical records. Consequently, the appellate court reverses and remands the case for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationRemandJury VerdictPreponderance of EvidenceAccidental InjuryTotal Permanent DisabilityMedical TestimonyPrior InjuryWitness TestimonyRehearing
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 8,103 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