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. 01-14-00892-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2014

Adelaida Salazar Bautista A/K/A Adelaida Alvarado, Individually and as Next Friend of Maria Jennifer Aide A/K/A Maria Jennifer Alvarado, A. A., A. A., I. S. A., M. A., and E. A., Minors And Irineo Alvarado and Maria Ana Moctezuma v. Trinidad Drilling Limited

This is an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a special appearance by Trinidad Drilling Ltd., a Canadian corporation, in a wrongful death lawsuit. Appellants Adelaida Salazar Bautista et al. sued Trinidad Drilling Ltd. for the death of Nabor Alvarado, alleging negligence and attempting to establish specific personal jurisdiction by claiming the parent company controlled and oversaw the subsidiary's drilling operations in Texas. The trial court, Hon. Brent Gamble presiding in the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris County, granted Trinidad Drilling Ltd.'s special appearance on October 13, 2014. Trinidad Drilling Ltd. argues that it lacks sufficient contacts with Texas for specific or general personal jurisdiction, maintaining that it is a separate entity from the subsidiary, Trinidad LP, and therefore its corporate independence should be respected. The appellee requests the Court to affirm the trial court's judgment.

Personal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingParent-Subsidiary RelationshipWrongful DeathNegligenceSpecial AppearanceInterlocutory AppealTexas Law
References
8
Case No. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
Case No. No. 11-08-00118-CV (Trial Court Cause No. A-117,770)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2010

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Sandra Cruz, Individually and as Next Friend of Cesar Cruz, Narada Cruz, and Miguel Cruz

This case from the Eleventh Court of Appeals in Texas addresses the calculation of an independent contractor's average weekly wage for workers' compensation benefits. The dispute centered on whether payments for equipment rental and supplies should be included in the wage calculation. The appeals panel, relying on Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Rule 128.1(c)(1), excluded these reimbursements, setting the average weekly wage at $354. However, the trial court and a jury, considering expert testimony on profit margin, determined a higher wage of $581. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, affirming that Rule 128.1, which excludes reimbursement payments from wage calculations, carries the same force as a statute. The court upheld the $354 average weekly wage and remanded the issue of attorney's fees.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageIndependent ContractorEquipment ReimbursementTexas Labor CodeStatutory InterpretationAgency RulesAppellate ReviewContract LawEctor County
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. McAneney

Patricia McAneney died intestate on September 11, 2001. Her brother, James E McAneney, filed a claim with the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. Patricia's domestic partner, Margaret Cruz, also sought compensation from the fund. The Fund increased the award by $253,454 to acknowledge Cruz's domestic partnership, intending this portion for her. However, the full award of $531,541.42 was distributed to James E McAneney, who refused to disburse any part to Cruz. Cruz then sued McAneney to compel disbursement based on constructive trust and unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court denied McAneney's motion to dismiss, and this appellate court affirmed that denial, ruling that New York law and federal legislation intended to compensate surviving domestic partners, making Cruz's claims viable and McAneney's actions inconsistent with good faith.

September 11th Victim Compensation FundDomestic PartnershipConstructive TrustUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewEstate DistributionFiduciary DutyStatutory InterpretationEquitable Remedies
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wingfoot Enterprises v. Alvarado

The concurring opinion by Justice Enoch challenges the application of the "right-to-control" test for determining employer status within the Texas workers’ compensation framework. Justice Enoch advocates for a definition where an "employer" is identified by their contract of hire and provision of workers’ compensation insurance, a stance exemplified by the Ammean case. The opinion critiques the Court's reliance on the control test to establish joint employment for Alvarado (by Tandem and Web), arguing it leads to unfair outcomes and lacks broad legislative endorsement beyond specific provisions like the Staff Leasing Services Act. Concluding that Tandem solely qualifies as Alvarado's employer based on the contract and insurance, Justice Enoch asserts that Alvarado's common law claims against Tandem should be barred by the Act’s exclusivity provision. Therefore, while concurring with the final judgment, Justice Enoch expresses significant disagreement with the Court's underlying reasoning and its potential implications for Texas's workers’ compensation scheme.

Workers' CompensationRight-to-control testEmployer definitionJoint employmentStaff Leasing Services ActTexas Labor CodeExclusive remedyNegligence suitTemporary helpContract of hire
References
9
Case No. 13-20-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2021

San Benito Consolidated Independent School District v. Maria Conception Cruz

Maria Conception Cruz (Appellee) sued San Benito Consolidated Independent School District (Appellant) for age discrimination after she was demoted from her director position to Title 1 Coordinator. Cruz, who had worked for SBISD for twenty-seven years, alleged that her new supervisors, Nate Carman and Hector Madrigal, created a discriminatory work environment based on her age and eventually demoted her. SBISD appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Cruz failed to establish a prima facie case as she was replaced by someone insignificantly younger (Olivia Flores, 67, compared to Cruz, 68) and that they had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her reassignment. Cruz contended that Flores was a temporary replacement, and her true replacement was Dilia Cornett (49), who was significantly younger. The Court of Appeals found that Cruz raised a fact issue regarding her replacement and presented sufficient evidence to suggest that SBISD's stated reasons for her demotion were pretextual. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of SBISD's plea to the jurisdiction.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRAPrima Facie CasePretextDemotionSchool DistrictGovernmental ImmunityMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Liberatore

Plaintiff Victor Cruz, a Puerto Rican police officer, filed suit against Louis Liberatore, Thomas Belfiore, the WCPD, and Westchester County, alleging claims including hostile work environment, failure to train and supervise, and retaliation. Cruz claimed Inspector Liberatore made discriminatory remarks, humiliated him, and physically assaulted him. After filing an EEOC complaint and an internal investigation, Cruz was transferred, which he asserted was retaliatory. The court partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing some hostile work environment and retaliation claims to proceed while dismissing others, including those against Liberatore in his official capacity and the Title VII hostile work environment claim against the WCPD/County.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment DiscriminationSection 1983Title VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentPolice MisconductEthnic DiscriminationWorkplace Harassment
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarado v. Farah Manufacturing Co.

Jose Luis Lerma Alvarado sued Farah Manufacturing Company for retaliatory discharge, alleging a violation of Article 8307c after he filed a worker's compensation claim. During the trial, Alvarado presented testimony from an undisclosed rebuttal witness, Jacqueline Arrambide, which Farah objected to but the trial court allowed. The jury found in favor of Alvarado, awarding significant damages. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the trial court's decision, citing reversible error in the admission of the undisclosed testimony. This court affirmed the Court of Appeals' judgment, ruling that the trial court erred by admitting Arrambide's testimony without a strict showing of good cause, thereby upholding the mandatory nature and automatic sanction of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 215(5) regarding discovery disclosures.

Discovery Rule 215(5)Rebuttal WitnessUndisclosed Witness TestimonyGood Cause ExceptionSanctions for Discovery AbuseRetaliatory DischargeWorker's Compensation ClaimAbuse of DiscretionPretrial DisclosureTrial by Ambush
References
17
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05943 [120 AD3d 744]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2014

Cruz v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

Ricardo Enrique Cruz, an appellant-respondent, sued Cablevision Systems Corporation, JQ II Associates, LLC, and CSC Holdings, Inc. for personal injuries sustained from a 40-foot fall while working on a roof. Cruz alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified a Supreme Court order. It granted Cruz's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against all defendants. It also granted portions of the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims against JQ II Associates, LLC and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim entirely. However, it denied the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Cablevision and CSC. The order was affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyElevation-Related RiskFall from HeightNondelegable DutyIndustrial Code
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 222 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