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

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. 13-05-729-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Employees Retirement System of Texas v. Xavier Duenez and Irene Duenez

The Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) filed an interlocutory appeal after the trial court denied its motion to dismiss in a lawsuit. This lawsuit was initiated by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas (BCBS) against Xavier and Irene Duenez, seeking to recover a portion of a third-party settlement the Duenezes had obtained. BCBS was acting as ERS's administering firm in this action. ERS contended that it possessed exclusive jurisdiction over such subrogation disputes under the Texas Employees Group Benefits Act. However, the appellate court meticulously reviewed the ERS Act and found no explicit statutory language granting ERS exclusive authority over subrogation claims. The court concluded that subrogation rights in this context were derived from a contractual Plan Document, not from statute, and therefore, the Legislature had not conferred exclusive authority to ERS to resolve these disputes. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's order denying ERS's motion to dismiss, thereby retaining jurisdiction.

SubrogationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesStatutory InterpretationTexas LawInterlocutory AppealInsurance BenefitsHealthSelect of TexasDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employees Retirement System of Texas v. Duenez

The Employees Retirement System of Texas (ERS) asserted a subrogation claim against former member Xavier Duenez and his family to recover healthcare funds paid. ERS sought to dismiss its own claim, arguing it had exclusive administrative jurisdiction. The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether a state agency can demand dismissal of its claim due to its failure to exhaust administrative remedies before itself. The Court ruled that ERS does not have exclusive jurisdiction over subrogation claims, distinguishing them from claims for benefits. The petition was ultimately dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

SubrogationExclusive JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesState AgencyHealthcare BenefitsReimbursementStatutory InterpretationTexas LawCourt JurisdictionAppellate Practice
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robertson v. Home State County Mutual Insurance Co.

Appellant Paul Robertson obtained a judgment against his employer, Ray Redi-Mix, Inc., for personal injuries. Appellee Home State County Mutual Insurance Company, Redi-Mix's insurer, denied coverage based on workers' compensation and employee exclusions, obtaining a summary judgment against Robertson. Robertson appealed, arguing the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, specifically contending that the 'domestic employees' exception to the employee exclusion should apply to him. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, interpreting 'domestic employees' as persons engaged in employment incidental to a personal residence, thus concluding that the employee exclusion properly applied to Robertson's claims.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployee ExclusionDomestic Employees ExceptionWorkers' Compensation LawTexas Transportation CodeTexas Labor CodeSummary Judgment AppealCommercial Automobile Liability InsuranceBodily Injury ClaimsContract Construction
References
23
Case No. 02-08-00280-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2011

Paul Robertson v. Home State County Mutual Insurance Company

Appellant Paul Robertson obtained a judgment against his employer, Ray Redi-Mix, Inc., for personal injuries sustained on the job. Redi-Mix's transportation insurer, Home State County Mutual Insurance Company, denied coverage based on policy exclusions. The trial court granted summary judgment for Home State, finding coverage was excluded under both workers' compensation and employee exclusions. Robertson appealed, arguing that the 'domestic employees' exception to the employee exclusion should apply to him as an employee working in the United States and not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court, after en banc reconsideration, affirmed the trial court's judgment, interpreting 'domestic employees' to mean persons engaged in employment incidental to a personal residence, consistent with Texas Labor and Transportation Codes, and found Robertson's interpretation unreasonable.

Insurance coveragePolicy exclusionsWorkers' compensation lawEmployee exclusionDomestic employees exceptionStatutory interpretationCommercial automobile liabilitySummary judgmentAppellate procedureTexas law
References
22
Case No. 03-05-00178-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2009

Ann J. Schneider v. Employees Retirement System of Texas

Ann J. Schneider appealed a district-court judgment from Travis County that upheld an order by the Board of Trustees of the Employees Retirement System of Texas. The Board had denied Schneider's long-term disability benefits claim due to both late filing and a preexisting condition. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, reviewed the case under the substantial-evidence rule, confirming that the administrative law judge correctly allocated the burden of proof between the parties. The appellate court found that Schneider's alleged disability was caused by a condition for which she received treatment prior to her insurance coverage, thus falling under the preexisting-condition exclusion. Furthermore, the court concluded that Schneider failed to provide sufficient evidence to qualify for an exception or waiver to this exclusion, as she could not prove "actively at work" for the required consecutive months. Consequently, the district court's judgment affirming the Board's decision was affirmed.

long-term disabilityinsurance denialpreexisting conditionuntimely claimadministrative reviewappellate courtburden of proofcarpal tunnel syndromeinsurance policy interpretationTexas law
References
9
Case No. 03-11-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Anonymous Adult Texas Resident

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) appealed a trial court's judgment that reversed its determination requiring an anonymous Texas resident to register as a sex offender under the Texas Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The central legal question involved whether a 1993 Massachusetts conviction for "indecent assault and battery" was "substantially similar" to a reportable Texas sex offense. DPS contended the trial court erred by excluding a police report detailing the victim's allegations and in its "substantial similarity" finding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the elements of the Massachusetts statute were not substantially similar to those of Texas sexual assault, indecency with a child, or related attempted offenses. Therefore, the anonymous resident was not required to register as a sex offender in Texas under SORA, rendering the evidentiary exclusion issue moot.

Sex Offender RegistrationSORASubstantial Similarity TestMassachusetts LawTexas LawCriminal ProcedureSexual AssaultIndecent Assault and BatteryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Municipal Employees Pension System v. Craig E. Ferrell, Jr.

This case is an interlocutory appeal initiated by the Houston Municipal Employees Pension System (HMEPS) challenging a trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The appellees, including Craig E. Ferrell Jr., sought a judicial declaration of their entitlement to pension benefits and service credit within HMEPS, contending HMEPS misinterpreted governing statutes. HMEPS asserted governmental immunity and exclusive jurisdiction as grounds for dismissal. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding that a declaratory judgment action to construe statutes and declare rights, without seeking monetary damages, does not trigger governmental immunity or the exclusive jurisdiction doctrine. The court declined to rule on ripeness and amount-in-controversy issues, as these were not addressed by the trial court.

Governmental ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentPension Benefits EligibilityStatutory ConstructionInterlocutory AppealExclusive Jurisdiction DoctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionWaiver of ImmunityHouston Municipal Employees Pension SystemPublic Employee Pensions
References
22
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2009

Goode v. Woodside

The plaintiff sued co-employee Scheniqua L. Woodside and Karl L. Abbadessa for personal injuries sustained in a car accident. The plaintiff and Woodside were traveling to a mandatory staff meeting in Woodside's car after returning a company bus, indicating they were co-employees acting within the scope of their employment. The plaintiff received workers' compensation benefits for his injury. Woodside moved for summary judgment dismissal, arguing the action against her was barred by Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions. The Supreme Court denied her motion, but the appellate court reversed, granting summary judgment to Woodside because the plaintiff's action was barred by co-employee exclusivity and he did not suffer a 'grave injury.'

Workers' Compensation LawExclusivity provisionsCo-employee liabilitySummary judgmentPersonal injuryCar accidentScope of employmentGrave injuryAppellate reviewReversal of order
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 10,265 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