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. 05-17-01421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2018

in Re: Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC

This legal document is Magellan Crude Oil Pipeline Company, L.P.'s (Real Party in Interest) response to an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by Enterprise Crude Oil, LLC (Relator). The core dispute revolves around Enterprise's alleged breach of a Crude Oil Distribution Agreement, specifically its 10-year commitment to exclusively use Magellan's Houston-area crude oil distribution facilities. Enterprise sought to prevent discovery, claiming requests were overbroad, burdensome, and sought trade secrets or inadmissible parol evidence. Magellan argues the mandamus should be denied, asserting its discovery requests are relevant to contract breach, fraud, and promissory estoppel claims, and that Enterprise's objections lack merit given Magellan's contractual audit rights. The document concludes by advocating for the denial of Enterprise's mandamus petition.

Contract DisputeMandamusDiscovery OrderTrade SecretsParol EvidenceSummary JudgmentRequirements ContractPipeline TransportationCrude OilGood Faith
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. 07-05-0268-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2006

State Office of Risk Management v. Rachel Herrera and Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed the dismissal of its attempt to judicially review a Texas Worker’s Compensation Commission appeals panel ruling. The trial court had dismissed SORM's petition for lack of jurisdiction, asserting it was not timely filed within 30 days. SORM argued that the dispute concerned compensability, which allowed for a 40-day filing period under the Labor Code. The Court of Appeals determined that the core issue of identifying the responsible employer for death benefits, thereby defining the course and scope of employment, constituted a matter of compensability. Consequently, SORM had 40 days to file. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Worker's CompensationJudicial ReviewJurisdictionTimelinessCompensabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentDeath BenefitsTexas Labor CodeGovernment CodeAppeals Court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc. v. Lorac Service Corp.

This case before the Texas Supreme Court concerns a deceptive trade practices claim brought by Lorac Service Corporation against Sherman Simon Enterprises, Inc., a Hertz franchisee. Lorac alleged that Sherman Simon Enterprises misrepresented that its automobile rental agreement provided liability insurance coverage and subsequently refused to honor this coverage after an accident involving a Lorac employee. While the trial court and court of appeals found in favor of Lorac, awarding treble damages and attorney's fees, Sherman Simon Enterprises appealed, challenging Lorac's consumer status and the sufficiency of evidence for misrepresentation. The Supreme Court upheld Lorac's qualification as a consumer under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. However, the court ultimately concluded there was no evidence of misrepresentation, as Sherman Simon Enterprises did provide the promised liability coverage through its insurer, even though the insurer initially refused to defend Lorac. Consequently, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, and judgment was rendered in favor of Sherman Simon Enterprises.

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Consumer StatusAutomobile Rental AgreementLiability Insurance CoverageMisrepresentationAgencyCorporation as ConsumerInsurance Contract BreachAppellate ReviewTexas Supreme Court
References
10
Case No. ADJ4115739 (VNO 0487593)
Regular

ZACH WALZ vs. ARIZONA CARDINALS; RISK ENTERPRISE 2314 BREA

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, concerning applicant Zach Walz against defendants Arizona Cardinals and Risk Enterprise, resulted in an order granting a petition for reconsideration. All future case-related communications are to be directed to the Commissioners' Office in San Francisco, pending the issuance of a Decision After Reconsideration. The order was dated and filed on October 11, 2001.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationCommissioners' OfficeADJ4115739VNO 0487593VNO 0487351VNO 0487591VNO 0487592Arizona Cardinals
References
0
Case No. 03-98-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Subsequent Injury Fund v. Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

The Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (Risk Pool) challenged the constitutionality of specific provisions within the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and related Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) rules. These provisions mandated contributions to the Subsequent Injury Fund, which the Risk Pool argued violated constitutional restrictions on political subdivisions lending credit or granting public money, and imposing state ad valorem property taxes. The trial court initially sided with the Risk Pool, declaring the requirements unconstitutional as applied to its members. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed the Risk Pool's standing and the core constitutional arguments. The appellate court characterized the mandatory contributions as analogous to a custodial escheat statute, where the state assumes custody of unclaimed death benefits rather than gaining absolute ownership. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Risk Pool failed to meet its burden for an "as applied" constitutional challenge, notably by not asserting a limitations defense.

Workers' Compensation ActSubsequent Injury FundDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeAs-Applied ChallengeAssociational StandingAcceptance of Benefits DoctrineEscheat LawCustodial EscheatUnclaimed Death Benefits
References
18
Case No. W2015-00498-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2016

The Estate of Blake B. Cunningham, by and through Barbara Cunningham v. Epstein Enterprises, LLC

This premises liability case concerns the fatal shooting of a security guard, Blake B. Cunningham, at Cherry Crest Apartments. His widow, Barbara Cunningham, sued Epstein Enterprises, LLC, the apartment manager, and Louis and William Epstein, LP, the owner, alleging negligence for failing to provide a safe workplace. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding they owed no duty to protect the security guard from criminal acts, as the risk was inherent to his job. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that the independent contractor exception applied. The court also affirmed the award of discretionary costs to the defendants.

Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor ExceptionDuty of CareForeseeabilityCriminal ActsSecurity GuardAppellate ReviewNegligenceAffirmed Judgment
References
34
Case No. 07-07-0288-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2009

State Office of Risk Management v. Rachel Leigh Herrera, Victoria Danielle Herrera, Matthew Ryen Herrera, Kelcey Mercedes Dena Herrera, Care'n Destiny Herrera, Beneficiaries of Jose Arturo Herrera, And Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed the trial court's dismissal of its lawsuit seeking judicial review of an appeals panel decision, which found SORM responsible for paying death benefits to the beneficiaries of deceased police officer Jose Herrera. Officer Herrera died in the line of duty, and SORM denied liability, arguing he was employed by the City of Friona, a self-insured entity, not the State. The trial court dismissed SORM's suit because SORM failed to timely name the City of Friona as a defendant within the statutory 40-day period. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the City of Friona was an indispensable party and the 40-day limitations period was not tolled for misidentification of parties. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to certain Herrera defendants, deeming SORM's claims against them to be without foundation.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilitySubject Matter JurisdictionIndispensable PartyAttorney's FeesStatutory BeneficiariesMisidentification of PartiesAppellate Court DecisionTexas Labor Law
References
20
Case No. 03-17-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2018

Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.// State Office of Risk Management v. State Office of Risk Management// Vista Medical Center Hospital Vista Healthcare, Inc. And Surgery Specialty Hospital, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals stemming from a dispute over the appropriate reimbursement for medical services provided by Vista Medical Center Hospital and its affiliates to injured employees covered by the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) under Texas workers’ compensation statutes. The district court had affirmed 23 administrative orders that required SORM to make additional payments to Vista, a decision which SORM challenged on appeal citing insufficient evidence. Vista, in turn, cross-appealed the district court's denial of prejudgment interest. The appellate court found substantial evidence supported the administrative law judges' conclusion that SORM's original reimbursement model was unfair and unreasonable, and that Vista's proposed methodology was valid. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified it to include the prejudgment interest that Vista was statutorily entitled to.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrejudgment InterestTexas LawHealthcare ProvidersInsurance DisputesFee Guidelines
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool v. Burns

The City of the Colony and Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (TML Risk Pool) appealed the trial court's dismissal of their appeal regarding a workers' compensation benefits award to Brandon Burns. Appellants challenged the timeliness of the City's intervention, TML Risk Pool's standing, and the award of attorney's fees. Brandon Burns cross-appealed on attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the City's petition in intervention was untimely, TML Risk Pool lacked standing as it was not an 'insurance carrier' under the labor code, and the attorney's fees awards were proper. The cross-appeal on attorney's fees was also overruled as Burns failed to show how the trial court's actions resulted in an improper judgment.

Appellate ReviewStandingInterventionTimelinessEquitable TollingAttorney's FeesJurisdictionSelf-InsuranceGovernmental EntityTexas Labor Code
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 2,417 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