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. 01-03-00419-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2004

Melquiades Flores, Sr., and Mary Flores, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Their Son, Melquiades Flores, Jr. v. North America Technologies Group, Inc., Tietek, Inc And Skillmaster, Inc.

Melquiades Flores, Sr. and Mary Flores (the Floreses) appealed a summary judgment rendered in favor of TieTek, Inc. (and its parent company North American Technologies Group, Inc.) and Skillmaster Staffing Services, Inc. The Floreses filed a wrongful death action after their son, Mike Flores, sustained fatal injuries while working at TieTek's facility, having been assigned there by Skillmaster, a temporary employment agency. The central issue on appeal was whether TieTek qualified as Mike Flores's employer, which would entitle TieTek to the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the right-to-control test is still applicable for determining employer status under the TWCA and that TieTek exercised sufficient control over Mike Flores's work details to be considered a borrowed servant employer, thus qualifying for the exclusive remedy provision.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyEmployer StatusBorrowed Servant DoctrineRight-to-Control TestSummary Judgment AppealTemporary Employment AgencyCo-employer LiabilityTexas Labor Code
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. NORTH AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES GROUP, INC.

The Floreses appealed a summary judgment that favored TieTek and Skillmaster in a wrongful death suit concerning their son, Mike Flores. Mike Flores, initially employed by Skillmaster, sustained fatal injuries while working at TieTek's plastics manufacturing plant. The central legal question was whether TieTek qualified as Mike Flores's employer, which would limit the Floreses' remedy to workers' compensation benefits under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that TieTek was a 'borrowing employer' due to its day-to-day control over Mike Flores's work, thus making the TWCA's exclusive remedy provision applicable.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyBorrowed Servant DoctrineCo-employerRight-to-Control TestTemporary StaffingEmployer LiabilityTexas Law
References
21
Case No. 13-15-00024-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 2015

Maria Zamarripa, as Temporary Guardian of the Estates of R. F. R. and R. J. R., Minors, and Olga Flores, as Temporary Administrator of the Estate of Yolanda Iris Flores v. Bay Area Health Care Group, Ltd. D/B/A Corpus Christi Medical Center, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation

This case involves an appeal by Maria Zamarripa and Olga Flores (Appellants) against Bay Area Health Care Group, Hidalgo County EMS, and Hidalgo County Emergency Medical Service Foundation (Appellees). The Appellants are challenging the trial court's orders that granted the Appellees' motions to dismiss. The core of the appeal centers on the qualifications of Nurse Spears as an expert witness and the sufficiency of expert reports regarding the standard of care, its breach, and causation in a medical malpractice claim involving Yolanda Iris Flores's injuries and death from placenta accreta and pre-term labor. Appellants argue that Nurse Spears is qualified, the expert reports adequately connect CCMC's alleged breach of care to the injuries, and alternatively, they are entitled to amend the reports. They pray for the reversal of the trial court's dismissal orders and a remand for further proceedings.

Medical MalpracticePlacenta AccretaPre-term LaborMedical NegligenceStandard of CareCausationExpert Witness QualificationsHospital LiabilityEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Wrongful Death
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Coffield Warehouse Co.

Javier Flores, an employee of Coffield Warehouse Company, suffered severe injuries, including leg amputations, when he was struck by railcars while attempting to repair a conveyer belt on company premises. Flores sued Coffield and Southern Pacific Transportation Company, alleging liability under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). Southern Pacific was granted summary judgment, which Flores did not appeal. Coffield also moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not a "common carrier by railroad" under FELA and that Flores' claim was limited to workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Coffield, concluding that Coffield, primarily a grain storage and warehousing business, did not meet the four criteria to be classified as a common carrier by railroad under FELA, and thus was not liable to Flores under the Act.

Federal Employers' Liability ActCommon Carrier by RailroadWorkers' Compensation ActSummary Judgment AffirmationPersonal Injury ClaimRailroad AccidentEmployer LiabilityInterstate CommerceGrain WarehousingEmployee Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borg-Warner Protective Services Corp. v. Flores

This legal opinion, a concurring and dissenting statement by Chief Justice Seerden, addresses the case of Amelia Flores against Borg-Warner, her former employer. Flores alleged sexual harassment and rape by her supervisor, Jimmy Gonzales, leading her to resign and claim constructive discharge. The majority opinion affirmed awards for Flores's damages based on this theory. However, Chief Justice Seerden dissents from this affirmation, arguing that Flores failed to present legally or factually sufficient evidence for constructive discharge. The dissent emphasizes that Borg-Warner took immediate, reasonable action by placing the supervisor on administrative leave, and Flores did not allow the employer sufficient time to implement a permanent solution before resigning.

Sexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmployment DiscriminationRapeHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoTexas Labor CodeDamagesLost WagesPunitive Damages
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Great American Insurance Co.

William Roberts, an employee of Flores, died in 1962 while working as a seaman. His widow, Ruth Roberts, subsequently sued Flores for negligence under the Jones Act. Flores's insurer, Great American Insurance Company, initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine if it was obligated to defend Flores or pay any resulting judgment, citing a "Maritime Liability Exclusion" in Flores's policy. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Great American, declaring no such obligation existed. Flores and Ruth Roberts appealed this decision, contending the exclusion was invalid under Texas Workmen's Compensation Law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, concluding the exclusion was valid regarding the Employers' Liability coverage pertinent to the Jones Act suit.

Workers' CompensationEmployers' LiabilityMaritime LawJones ActInsurance ExclusionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawSeaman
References
1
Case No. 2017-278 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2019

Flores v. A & A Family Beverage, Inc.

The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed an order denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Carlos Flores sought recovery for injuries sustained while unloading a truck owned by A & A Family Beverage, Inc. Defendants argued that Flores's sole remedy was workers' compensation benefits. The Civil Court found triable issues of fact regarding whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Flores and A & A, which would determine if workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The appellate court concurred, noting that the nature and extent of A & A's control over Flores needed to be determined by the trier of fact, and also clarified that Flores was not an employee of A & A under Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (4) as he was not a driver.

workers' compensationemployer-employee disputesummary judgment denialappellate reviewlabor lawpersonal injury claimexclusive remedytrucking accidentfactual disputerespondent vs appellant
References
1
Case No. 14-05-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2006

Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Isaac Flores

Isaac Flores sustained a neck injury in February 1993 while employed, and his employer was insured by the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSP). Flores sought workers' compensation for a recommended surgery by Dr. Mark McDonnell, but his claim was denied by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and its Appeals Panel. Flores then filed a petition in the trial court, leading to a default judgment in his favor on August 16, 2004, which was finalized on December 7, 2004, reversing the Appeals Panel's decision. ICSP filed a restricted appeal, alleging error on the face of the record and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction due to a late filing of Flores's petition. The appellate court found no error apparent on the face of the record concerning the forty-day filing deadline or the necessity of attaching the Appeals Panel's decision to Flores's petition, thereby affirming the trial court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationDefault JudgmentRestricted AppealJurisdictional IssueAppeals Panel DecisionTrial Court JurisdictionFiling DeadlineMedical NecessityOrthopedic Surgeon TestimonyError Apparent on Record
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Ass'n

George Flores appealed the dismissal of his worker's compensation lawsuit, which was originally dismissed by the trial court for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court's decision was based on Flores's alleged failure to file the suit within the 40-day period mandated by Texas Labor Code section 410.252. Flores argued that this requirement is a statute of limitations, not jurisdictional, and that he timely filed his petition under the 'mailbox rule' of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 5. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's determination de novo, finding that Flores's attorney's affidavit, detailing the certified mailing of the petition on the 40th day, satisfied the mailbox rule. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that Flores's petition was timely filed, reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Worker's CompensationMailbox RuleJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewTimely FilingAppellate ReviewPlea to the JurisdictionSummary Judgment
References
10
Case No. 05-14-00531-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2016

Juan Carlos Flores v. Chasco, Inc. A/K/A Chasco Interiors, Inc.

Juan Carlos Flores was injured while installing an HVAC system with a scissor lift at a construction site in July 2008. He sued Chasco Inc., 24 Hour Ltd., and ICI Construction, Inc. for negligence and premises liability, among other claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for all appellees. Flores appealed, challenging the summary judgments and the court's failure to sustain his objections. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that 24 Hour Ltd. established Flores as a 'borrowed servant', Chasco Inc. owed no duty to Flores, and ICI Construction, Inc. neither controlled Flores's work nor was liable for premises defects.

Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineNegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction Site InjuryScissor Lift AccidentAppellate ReviewTexas LawDuty of Care
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 194 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