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. 13-02-450-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2005

Western Steel Company, Inc. v. Hank Altenburg

This is a dissenting opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals in the case of Western Steel Company, Inc. v. Hank Altenburg. The case concerns an industrial accident where Hank Altenburg, a temporary employee placed by Unique Employment Services, sustained a crush injury to his foot. A jury found Western Steel negligent and that Altenburg was not a borrowed employee. Western Steel appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence regarding the borrowed servant doctrine. Justice Castillo's dissenting opinion argues that the evidence conclusively established Altenburg was a borrowed employee of Western Steel as a matter of law, and thus the jury's finding to the contrary was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The dissent would reverse the trial court's judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with recent Texas Supreme Court precedent concerning the workers' compensation exclusive remedy bar for borrowed employees.

borrowed servant doctrineworkers' compensationnegligencelegal sufficiencyfactual sufficiencytemporary employeeindustrial accidentright to controlrespondeat superiorTexas law
References
35
Case No. 01-00-00586-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company

This case involves indemnity and insurance claims arising from oilfield litigation. Appellants, Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company, appealed a summary judgment granted to appellees, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company. The trial court had ruled that mutual indemnity provisions in an oil and gas drilling contract were void under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment, holding that the contract was enforceable up to the extent of mutual coverage and dollar limits, and that its indemnity provisions were conspicuous.

Oilfield LitigationIndemnityInsurance ClaimsTexas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationMutual Indemnity ObligationConspicuousnessAppellate ReviewWell Blowout
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chicago, R. I. & G. Ry. Co. v. Steele

J. Frank Steele sued the Chicago, Rock Island & Gulf Railway Company for damages after a 1920 train-automobile collision in Wise County, Texas. Steele alleged the railway's negligence caused the accident due to excessive speed, failure to signal, an obstructed view, and a poorly maintained crossing. A jury found the railway company negligent on multiple grounds and awarded Steele $35,000. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding negligence and lack of contributory negligence. The court also concluded that the damage award was not excessive.

Railroad Crossing AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceJury VerdictProximate CauseExcessive DamagesAppellate ReviewStatutory SignalsObstructed View
References
35
Case No. 3-94-122-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1995

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. State Board of Insurance, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Houston General Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, United States Fire Insurance Company

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (Facility) appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an order by the State Board of Insurance. The Board had ordered the Facility to indemnify several servicing companies for legal expenses incurred in litigation brought by Standard Financial Indemnity Company (SFIC). The Facility argued that Article 5.76-2, section 2.05(i) of the Texas Insurance Code, which states the Facility 'may not indemnify the servicing companies,' terminated the servicing companies' right to indemnification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the servicing companies had a vested contractual right to indemnification which arose when they entered into servicing company agreements, and that section 2.05(i) could not be applied retroactively to impair these vested rights. The court found that the law existing at the time the contracts were made, which included the Facility's bylaws allowing for indemnification, was incorporated into the agreements.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawContractual RightsVested RightsRetroactive Application of LawIndemnificationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance Code
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania v. LTV Steel Co. (In re Chateaugay Corp.)

Appellant Blue Cross of Western Pennsylvania (BCWP) appealed a Bankruptcy Court decision that denied its request for relief from an automatic stay in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of LTV Steel Company, Inc. BCWP, an insurance provider for LTV Steel's former constituent companies (J&L and Republic), sought to set off a $2.88 million refund it owed LTV/J&L against over $3 million in unreimbursed claims it paid as a participant in a national syndication arrangement for LTV/Republic. The Bankruptcy Court found no mutuality between BCWP and LTV Steel to permit the set-off under 11 U.S.C. § 553(a). BCWP argued for third-party beneficiary status and equitable principles. The District Court affirmed the denial, ruling that BCWP was not a third-party beneficiary and that allowing the set-off would create an inequitable preference for BCWP over other creditors.

BankruptcyAutomatic StaySet-offMutualityThird-Party BeneficiaryInsurance ContractsHealth Care BenefitsSyndication ArrangementEmployer-Employee BenefitsDebtor in Possession
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Worsham Steel Co. v. Arias

Gonzalo Arias, an employee of Worsham Steel Company, suffered a back injury in December 1989 and was subsequently terminated, with the company claiming he quit. Arias filed a wrongful discharge claim under Article 8307c of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, leading to a jury awarding him over $1.2 million in damages. On appeal, Worsham Steel challenged the validity of the claim and the sufficiency of evidence for damages, particularly mental anguish. The appellate court affirmed that Worsham's conduct was actionable but reversed the mental anguish award, deeming "sadness" insufficient proof. Consequently, due to the unsegregated damages, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a retrial on all issues.

Wrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation ActArticle 8307cMental Anguish DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceCausal ConnectionAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandJury VerdictLost Wages
References
27
Case No. 03-00-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

All American Life Insurance Company American General Life Insurance Company American National Insurance Company American National Life Insurance Company of Texas IDS Life Insurance Company And USLIFE Life Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas

Several insurance companies appealed a district court judgment affirming the Comptroller's assessment of premium and maintenance taxes on 'internal rollover' transactions, where policyholders transfer accumulation values within the same company for new policies. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reviewed the construction of Texas Insurance Code articles 4.11 and 4.17 de novo. The court determined that 'internal rollovers' do not involve funds being 'received' or 'collected' by the insurance companies, as the funds remain within the company. Therefore, these transactions are not subject to the premium and maintenance taxes. The judgment of the district court was reversed in part, and the case was remanded for a determination of the refund amounts owed to the companies.

Insurance LawTax LawPremium TaxInternal RolloversStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of AppealsInsurance CompaniesComptrollerGross PremiumsTax Refund
References
9
Case No. 06-02-00035-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2003

Lone Star Steel Company v. Bridget Hatten

Bridget Hatten, an employee of Lone Star Steel Company, suffered a work-related hand injury and filed a workers' compensation claim. She was initially placed in an alternative work program but later moved to restrictive leave without pay after a diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome, and a dispute regarding the origin of her injury arose. Hatten subsequently sued Lone Star, alleging discrimination for filing a workers' compensation claim under the Texas Labor Code. The trial court ruled in Hatten's favor, awarding both compensatory damages and lost wages. However, on appeal, the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana reversed the lower court's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to establish a causal link between Hatten's placement on restrictive leave and her workers' compensation claim.

Workers' compensationDiscriminationTexas Labor CodeRetaliatory dischargeCausal connectionCircumstantial evidenceLegal sufficiencyCarpal tunnel syndromeRestrictive leaveEconomic incentive
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Western Steel Co. v. Altenburg

Hank Altenburg, a temporary worker hired by Unique Employment Services, was injured while working for Western Steel Company. Altenburg sued Western Steel, which asserted a workers' compensation policy as a bar to the action, claiming Altenburg was a borrowed employee. The trial court denied Western's motion for summary judgment, and a jury found Altenburg was not a borrowed employee. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court, ruling that Western Steel failed to prove it had workers' compensation insurance. However, the Supreme Court of Texas determined that the existence of Western Steel's workers' compensation policy was undisputed. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the sufficiency of the evidence for the jury's verdict regarding the borrowed employee status.

Workers' CompensationBorrowed EmployeeExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceInsurance PolicyTemporary WorkerTexas LawRemand
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1987

Reska v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee of Bethlehem Steel, initiated an action to recover reduced pension benefits. His monthly pension was decreased after the defendants, Bethlehem Steel Corporation and Subsidiary Companies, offset a Workers' Compensation Board award for a 20% partial hearing loss against his pension. The plaintiff argued this reduction violated the company's Plan provisions and ERISA's non-forfeiture clause. The court, however, found that the plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies and that the Plan's language allowed for such offsets for partial loss, explicitly excepting only total loss of a bodily member. Citing Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., the court concluded that ERISA permits such offsets, even for workers' compensation awards not solely for wage replacement, as it aligns with Congress's intent to provide cost-cutting avenues for employers. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Pension BenefitsERISAWorkers' Compensation OffsetNon-forfeiture ProvisionSummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesDisability PaymentsBethlehem Steel Pension PlanPartial Hearing LossEmployee Benefits
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 11,641 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