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. 22-0585
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2024

Texas Department of Transportation v. Mark Self and Birgit Self

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) was sued by Mark and Birgit Self for negligence and inverse condemnation after a subcontractor cut down trees on the Selfs' property outside the State's right-of-way easement. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment on both counts. The Court held that the Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for the Selfs' negligence claim because the subcontractor's employees were not in TxDOT's paid service, nor did TxDOT employees directly operate the equipment. However, the Court found a viable cause of action for inverse condemnation, concluding that TxDOT intentionally directed the destruction of the trees for public use, even if it mistakenly believed it had the legal right to do so. The negligence claim was dismissed, and the inverse condemnation claim was remanded for further proceedings.

Sovereign ImmunityInverse CondemnationNegligence ClaimTort Claims ActGovernment LiabilityProperty DamageRight-of-Way EasementSubcontractor LiabilityTree RemovalEminent Domain
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Independent School District v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local Union No. 1442

This case, heard by Justice YOUNG of the Texas Civil Appeals, involved several labor unions and individual public employees challenging the Dallas Public School District and its Superintendent, Dr. W. T. White. The dispute centered on the interpretation of Section 6, Article 5154c, V.A.C.S., concerning the right of public employees to present grievances through non-striking representatives. The District had refused to acknowledge the unions' capacity to act as such representatives. The trial court ruled in favor of the employees and unions, affirming their right to present grievances through their chosen representatives, provided they did not claim the right to strike. The appellate court upheld this decision, overruling the appellants' arguments against the scope of union representation for grievances.

Right to Work LawPublic EmployeesLabor UnionsGrievance ProceduresDeclaratory Judgment ActCollective BargainingRight to StrikeStatutory InterpretationClass ActionAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heggie v. Cumberland Electric Membership Corp.

Christopher A. Heggie, an employee, died during employment due to contact with CEMC's electrical wires. TCSA, the workers' compensation carrier for Montgomery County, paid death benefits to Heggie's representative. The representative then sued CEMC for negligence, and TCSA intervened to protect its subrogation interest. The representative settled with CEMC for $25,000, with the agreement explicitly preserving TCSA's rights against CEMC. However, the trial court granted TCSA's motion, ruling that TCSA had a subrogation lien on the settlement funds. The appellate court affirmed, holding that an employee cannot circumvent an employer's statutory subrogation lien by preserving the employer's rights against a third-party tortfeasor in a settlement agreement.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation LienSettlement AgreementThird-Party TortfeasorStatutory InterpretationEmployee RightsEmployer ReimbursementAppellate ReviewVoluntary Non-SuitDeath Benefit
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Monahan v. Remington Rand, Inc.

A self-insured employer appealed a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision granting death benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. The core issue was whether the employee's death resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The employee, an outside service man, was killed in a car accident on his way home after volunteering to repair a machine for his employer in Albany. The Board determined he remained an outside worker and that the accident was work-related. The appellate court affirmed, finding the Board's decision justified by the evidence, as the work performed was clearly for the employer's benefit.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsOutside WorkerCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewVoluntary WorkFatal AccidentBoard Decision
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Keystone Silver, Inc.

This case addresses a motion to dismiss a complaint filed under Section 16b of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. The central issue is whether an ex-employee can initiate and maintain a representative action on behalf of other current employees who are members of a rival union, particularly when these employees did not consent to the action and it proceeds against their will. The court ruled that such a representative action cannot be sustained under these circumstances, citing concerns about consent, interests of the represented parties, and public policy. The motion was granted to strike all allegations pertaining to the representative character of the action, except for Harry Orfinger's individual claim.

Fair Labor Standards ActRepresentative ActionLegal Capacity to SueMotion to DismissEx-EmployeeUnion RepresentationClass ActionMultiplicity of ActionsPublic PolicyEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trapani v. Consolidated Edison Employees' Mutual Aid Society, Inc.

This case addresses claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) against Consolidated Edison Employees’ Mutual Aid Society, Inc. (Mutual Aid) and its administrative officer, Paul R. Westerkamp. Plaintiffs, Consolidated Edison employees represented by Local 3, seek an equitable share of Mutual Aid's assets and a special emergency loan fund after their membership ceased in 1983. Building on an earlier decision, the court found that defendants retained benefit assets attributable to Local 3 for the benefit of Local 1-2, violating ERISA. The court also determined that Mr. Westerkamp breached his fiduciary duty by mismanaging assets and participating in a settlement detrimental to Local 3. Consequently, Mr. Westerkamp is barred from administering the Staten Island Relief Fund, and the parties are directed to propose methods for equitable asset distribution.

ERISAEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanFiduciary Duty BreachAsset MismanagementEquitable DistributionUnion BenefitsConsolidated EdisonMutual Aid SocietyPaul R. WesterkampLocal 3 IBEW
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 50, Bakery & Confectionery Workers, International Union of America v. General Baking Co.

The case involves a union, representing production and maintenance employees, suing several bakery companies for an alleged lockout. The union brought the action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, claiming a breach of the no-lockout provisions in their collective bargaining agreements. The alleged lockout occurred when the defendant bakery companies halted operations and sent home the plaintiff union's members, even though there was no direct labor dispute between them. This action was a response to a strike by a separate drivers' union against one of the bakery companies. The court defined a lockout as an employer withholding work to gain a concession *from their employees*. Since the defendants were not in a dispute with the plaintiff union and their actions were not intended to coerce concessions from them, the court ruled that no lockout had occurred. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Labor LawLockoutCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActBreach of ContractNo-lockout ClauseStrikeUnionEmployer-employee Relations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Maverick v. Texas Ass'n of Counties Workers' Compensation Self-Insurance Fund

The County of Maverick (County) appealed a trial court's judgment that Nutmeg Insurance Company (Nutmeg) and the Texas Association of Counties Workers’ Compensation Self-Insurance Fund (the Fund) did not owe the County a duty to defend or indemnify in a wrongful discharge lawsuit. Four former employees had sued the County after being terminated for filing workers' compensation claims. Both Nutmeg and the Fund refused to defend the County, which subsequently lost the wrongful discharge suit and was ordered to pay damages and reinstate employees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that neither Nutmeg's public entity liability policy nor the Fund's interlocal agreement covered damages for wrongful discharge, and upheld the award of attorneys' fees to Nutmeg and the Fund.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DischargeInsurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyInterlocal AgreementPublic Entity LiabilityTexas LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 10,835 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