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. 19-0282
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2021

Waste Management of Texas, Inc. and Rigoberto Zelaya v. Robert Stevenson

Justice Boyd issues a concurring opinion, agreeing with the Court's judgment that Robert Stevenson was an employee of Waste Management of Texas, Inc. under the Workers' Compensation Act, but disagrees with the Court's reasoning. He argues that the Court errs by creating a new test for employee status in workers' compensation cases, diverging from the well-established 'right-to-control' test applicable to both workers' compensation and vicarious liability. Boyd emphasizes that an express contract denying the right to control can be overcome by conclusive evidence of actual control if it demonstrates the contract was a sham or implicitly modified. He concludes that the summary-judgment record in this case compellingly shows Waste Management's persistent and comprehensive control over Stevenson's work, thus establishing an employer-employee relationship.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorRight to ControlDual EmploymentContractual InterpretationTexas Supreme CourtConcurring OpinionVicarious LiabilityStaffing Agency
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. State Division of Human Rights

This decision vacates a previous order and remands the matter to the State Division of Human Rights for a hearing. The initial court had dismissed a complaint, finding New York's Human Rights Law pre-empted by ERISA regarding pregnancy disability benefits. The Court of Appeals remitted for reconsideration in light of Shaw v Delta Airlines, which clarified that pre-emption only applies when a state law prohibits practices lawful under federal law. The court noted that the discrimination, alleged in 1977, predated the federal prohibition against pregnancy discrimination (effective April 29, 1979). However, ERISA exempts plans maintained solely for complying with disability insurance laws. The record is unclear if petitioner's plan is a separate plan (where NY Human Rights Law would apply) or part of a larger employee benefit plan (where ERISA would control). Therefore, the case is remanded for a determination on this specific factual issue only.

ERISA Pre-emptionHuman Rights LawPregnancy DiscriminationDisability Benefits LawState Law Pre-emptionFederal Law ConflictRemittiturEmployee Benefit PlansJudicial RemandWorkers' Compensation Law Art 9
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarado v. Wingfoot Enterprises

Justice Taft's concurring opinion criticizes the application of the "right to control" test in determining employer status for workers' compensation purposes, particularly in "borrowed servant" scenarios. He argues that this test, traditionally used to impose liability, is misapplied when used to shield employers from common-law liability, leading to unfair results that undermine the workers' compensation scheme's intent. Taft highlights that previous court decisions, specifically Smith v. Otis Eng’g Corp. and Archem Co. v. Austin Indus., Inc., relied on a repealed statute and misinterpreted precedent by introducing the "right to control" test into this context. He advocates for an approach that prioritizes the payment of workers' compensation benefits as the determinant of employer immunity from common-law claims, aligning with the legislative intent of prompt compensation for employees and liability protection for subscribing employers. While bound by precedent, Justice Taft expresses a preference for the holding in Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Ammean, which he believes offers a fairer outcome consistent with the workers' compensation statute's purpose.

Borrowed Servant DoctrineRight to Control TestExclusive Remedy ProvisionEmployer ImmunityStatutory Repeal ImpactJudicial ConcurrenceCommon Law ClaimsWorkers' Compensation PolicySubrogationPrecedent Analysis
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

German v. Whaley

This case addresses whether Ova Whaley, operating as Whaley Brothers Construction, was an employee of John C. German, d/b/a Chris German Construction Company, or an independent contractor. Whaley sustained injuries while operating equipment and claimed workers' compensation benefits, asserting employee status. German's insurance carrier filed a complaint arguing Whaley was an independent contractor. The trial court found Whaley to be an employee, noting German's right to control and terminate. However, the Supreme Court reversed this decision, applying the seven tests from Masiers v. Arrow Transfer & Storage Co., which include right to control, termination, method of payment, freedom to hire helpers, furnishing of tools, self-scheduling, and freedom to work for other entities. The court found that the evidence, particularly regarding Whaley's entrepreneurial activities, payment method without deductions, and freedom to work for others, overwhelmingly indicated an independent contractor relationship, despite German's theoretical right to control or terminate.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusWorkers' CompensationRight to ControlRight of TerminationMethod of PaymentFurnishing EquipmentMultiple EmployersConstruction IndustryMachine Operator
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

This proceeding involved a review of an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that the petitioners had discriminated against complainant Essie Morris. The discrimination stemmed from the petitioners' failure to accommodate Morris's observance of the Sabbath and her subsequent employment termination, violating Executive Law § 296(10). The court found substantial evidence supporting the Division's finding that petitioners improperly placed the burden on Morris to find assignment swaps. It emphasized an employer's affirmative duty to reasonably accommodate religious beliefs. The petitioners also failed to demonstrate exemption from Executive Law § 296(10) under paragraphs (b) and (c). Consequently, the order was confirmed, and the petitioners' appeal was dismissed.

Religious DiscriminationSabbath ObservanceEmployment TerminationReasonable AccommodationExecutive Law § 296State Human Rights LawEmployer ResponsibilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial Review of Administrative OrderPetition Dismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

University of Texas at El Paso v. Magdalena Ochoa

Magdalena Ochoa, a former temporary employee, sued The University of Texas at El Paso (UTEP) for sexual harassment, sex discrimination, and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA). This appeal by UTEP challenges the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity and arguing it was not Ochoa's employer. The appellate court examined the hybrid economic realities/common law control test and the Rennels test for standing. While finding UTEP did not satisfy the economic realities component of an employer-employee relationship, the court concluded that a fact issue existed regarding UTEP's control over Ochoa's employment opportunities for standing under the Rennels test. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny UTEP's plea to the jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliationGovernmental ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Commission on Human Rights ActEmployer-Employee RelationshipHybrid Economic Realities TestCommon Law Control TestRennels Test
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Board

The Texas Association of Business (TAB) filed a declaratory judgment action against the Texas Air Control Board and the Texas Water Commission, challenging the constitutionality of statutes allowing these agencies to levy civil penalties. Specifically, TAB argued that provisions requiring a supersedeas bond or cash deposit for judicial review violated the open courts and jury trial provisions of the Texas Constitution. The trial court denied TAB's relief. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the jury trial challenge, concluding that no right to a jury trial exists for appeals from administrative environmental adjudications. However, the Court reversed the trial court on the open courts challenge, holding that mandating a bond or cash deposit as a prerequisite to judicial review was an unreasonable and unconstitutional restriction on court access.

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawStandingJudicial ReviewOpen Courts ProvisionJury Trial RightEnvironmental LawCivil PenaltiesTexas ConstitutionSeparation of Powers
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 9,172 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