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. W2010-01496-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2011

Charles Roach and Joyce Roach v. Dixie Gas Company Ben Thomas Williams, Jr., Individually and as Owner and Manager of Dixie Gas Company Semstream, L.P. Santie Wholesale Oil Company, A Division of Blue Rhino Reliable Propane and John Does 1 through 10

Charles and Joyce Roach sued Dixie Gas Company and Benjamin Thomas Williams, Jr. for damages resulting from a propane explosion. The Roaches claimed numerous physical and psychological injuries, including PTSD, depression, hearing loss, and a speech disorder. While defendants admitted liability for property damage, they disputed causation for personal injuries, arguing the Roaches were not at the scene during the explosion. After a jury trial awarded zero damages, the Roaches appealed, challenging the admissibility of medical examinations, expert testimony, and deposition testimony, and the weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the Rule 35 examinations or the admissibility of expert testimony, and concluded that material evidence supported the jury's verdict of zero damages.

Propane ExplosionPersonal InjuryEmotional DistressPTSDDepressionHearing LossSpeech DisorderMedical Expert TestimonyRule 35 ExaminationJury Verdict
References
38
Case No. 05-12-01102-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2014

Ronald Kinabrew v. Inergy Propane, LLC

Ronald Kinabrew sued Inergy Propane, LLC for retaliatory discharge after his termination, alleging it was retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Inergy contended the termination resulted from the neutral application of its leave-of-absence policy, as Kinabrew's absence exceeded the twelve-week maximum. The trial court granted summary judgment for Inergy, dismissing Kinabrew's claim. Kinabrew appealed, arguing there was a causal connection between his workers' compensation claim and his termination, and that Inergy's leave policy was not uniformly applied. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Kinabrew failed to provide controverting evidence that Inergy's neutral leave policy was not uniformly enforced or that his termination was retaliatory.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentLeave of absence policyUniform enforcementCausal linkLabor codeEmployment lawMedical leaveTexas Court of Appeals
References
17
Case No. 03-18-00596-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

the City of Houston v. Texas Propane Gas Association

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning a case between The City of Houston and the Texas Propane Gas Association (TPGA). The dissent argues that the majority's decision places unreasonable obstacles on associational standing, particularly regarding the first prong of the Hunt test. The dissenting judge contends that the TPGA has demonstrated its members would have standing to sue independently, given their involvement in the LP-gas industry and the adverse effects of the City's regulations. The primary legal question revolves around whether the City of Houston's ordinances regulating the LP-gas industry are preempted by state law under Texas Natural Resources Code § 113.054. Consequently, the dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision to overrule the City's plea to the jurisdiction.

Associational StandingPreemption DoctrineRegulatory ChallengeLP-Gas IndustryMunicipal OrdinancesState PreemptionTexas Court of AppealsDissenting OpinionHunt TestTravis County
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00659 [179 AD3d 1425]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Cox v. Suburban Propane, LP

Claimant Barney A. Cox, a service manager, was diagnosed with noncompensable lung cancer in May 2014 and underwent surgery, returning to full-time work in January 2015. In June 2016, he sustained a work injury while lifting a propane tank, leading to established claims for injuries to his right shoulder, right chest, thoracic strain, and aggravation of complex regional pain syndrome. The employer and its carrier sought apportionment under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (7), arguing the award should be divided due to the preexisting noncompensable condition. However, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found apportionment inapplicable, a decision upheld by the Appellate Division, Third Department. The court affirmed, reasoning that apportionment is not applicable when a preexisting noncompensable condition did not disable the claimant from effectively performing job duties at the time of the work-related accident.

Workers' Compensation LawApportionmentPreexisting ConditionNoncompensable InjuryWage-earning CapacityComplex Regional Pain SyndromeThoracic StrainRight Shoulder InjuryLifting InjuryMedical Testimony
References
12
Case No. 09-18-00122-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2019

AmeriGas Propane, LP v. Jose Francisco Aboytes-Muñiz, Andy Medina-Cardenas and Bernabe Bustillo-Rivera

This case is a permissive appeal regarding a workplace injury lawsuit where several employees (Appellees) alleged injuries at AmeriGas Propane, L.P.'s facility. The primary legal question addressed was whether AmeriGas, as the employer, had valid workers' compensation insurance coverage at the time of the incident to invoke the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court had previously denied AmeriGas's summary judgment motion, concluding a lack of evidence for such coverage. However, the appellate court reviewed evidence including intent, premium payments, and benefit disbursements for another injured party (Roberto) under UGI Corporation's policy, despite AmeriGas not being explicitly named due to an an administrative error. The court concluded that this undisputed evidence established AmeriGas's coverage, thereby entitling it to the exclusive-remedy defense. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its findings.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DefenseSummary JudgmentPermissive AppealInsurance CoverageMutual MistakeAdministrative ErrorEmployer-Employee RelationshipBorrowed Servant DoctrineTexas Labor Code
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roach v. Dixie Gas Co.

Plaintiffs Charles and Joyce Roach filed a lawsuit against Dixie Gas Company and its owner, Benjamin Thomas Williams, Jr., alleging physical and psychological injuries from a propane gas explosion. The defendants admitted liability for property damage but disputed personal injuries and causation, claiming the plaintiffs were not present at the explosion site. After a jury trial, the jury found the explosion did not cause personal injuries and awarded zero damages. The plaintiffs appealed, challenging the trial court's decisions regarding Rule 35 medical examinations, admissibility of defense expert testimony, and deposition testimony, as well as the jury's verdict. The Court affirmed the trial court's rulings and the jury's verdict, finding ample material evidence to support the finding of zero damages.

NegligencePropane ExplosionPersonal Injury ClaimPsychological InjuriesPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Hearing LossTinnitusMedical Expert TestimonyRule 35 ExaminationExpert Witness Admissibility
References
32
Case No. CA 15-01542
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2016

JOHNSTON'S L.P. GAS SERVICE, INC., GABRIEL, HUGO RAFAEL RAMIREZ v

Plaintiffs, undocumented farm workers, suffered injuries from a propane gas explosion in their living quarters, leading to an action against Johnston’s L.P. Gas Service, Inc., the propane supplier. Johnston’s initiated a third-party action against the farm owners and plaintiffs' employers, the DeMarco defendants, seeking contribution or indemnification. The Supreme Court denied Johnston’s summary judgment motion and partially denied the DeMarco defendants' motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing claims against Johnston’s regarding propane odorization and granting the DeMarco defendants' motion concerning plaintiff Lucio Jimenez Gabriel due to workers' compensation exclusivity and the absence of a 'grave injury.' The court affirmed the denial of Johnston’s motion regarding causation and failure to warn, citing unresolved factual issues.

Propane ExplosionWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentFailure to WarnCausationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionFacial DisfigurementUndocumented Farm Workers
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

AmeriGas Propane, Inc. v. Crook

AmeriGas Propane Inc. sought injunctive relief against former employees J.T. Crook and Ricky Jenkins, and their new employer Empiregas, Inc. of Lebanon, alleging breach of non-compete agreements, tortious interference with contract, and misappropriation of confidential information. The court found that Crook and Jenkins breached their post-employment agreements by soliciting AmeriGas customers using confidential information gained during their prior employment. The defendants and Empiregas were also found liable for tortious interference with contracts and unfair competition. The court concluded that AmeriGas suffered irreparable harm, upholding contracts serves public interest, and enforcing the covenants would not impose undue economic hardship on the defendants. Consequently, the court granted AmeriGas's motion for a preliminary injunction.

Non-compete agreementPreliminary InjunctionBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceConfidential InformationUnfair CompetitionTrade SecretsEmployee SolicitationCustomer GoodwillPropane Gas Industry
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Steam Pipe Explosion at 41st St. & Lexington Ave.

This dissent arises from an appeal in consolidated pretrial proceedings concerning damages from a 2007 steam pipe explosion owned by Con Ed. Con Ed, a defendant, sought discovery from Team Industrial Services, Inc. (also a defendant) regarding records from the 2001 "Diamond Shamrock litigation" in Texas, arguing similarity in causation due to excessive sealant application. The Supreme Court denied this motion after an in camera review, finding insufficient similarity. The appellate majority reversed, granting Con Ed's motion to compel, but the dissenting judge, Friedman, J.P., argues this was an abuse of discretion. The dissent emphasizes the Supreme Court's thorough analysis of the distinct mechanisms of causation in the two incidents, concluding that the common factor of excessive sealant is superficial and the Diamond Shamrock files are irrelevant to the current matter.

Discovery DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionIn Camera ReviewConsolidated ProceedingsSteam Pipe ExplosionSealant ApplicationCausation MechanismPrior Litigation SimilarityPretrial Proceedings
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oefelein v. CFI Construction Inc.

Plaintiff Keith Oefelein sustained a right shoulder injury after tripping over an exposed plastic gas pipe at a school renovation site on September 17, 2001. He and his spouse filed a personal injury action against CFI Construction, Inc., the prime contractor, and Amerigas Propane, L.P., the gas vendor. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to both defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed, finding no evidence that either defendant created or exacerbated the dangerous condition. The court noted that neither defendant performed work at the site for three weeks prior to the accident, and the area was backfilled and inspected, deemed complete. The court concluded that there was no support for the claim that the area was left less safe by the defendants.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentTort LiabilityContractual ObligationThird-Party LiabilityDangerous ConditionBackfillingExcavation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 145 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