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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

Riley v. HSBC USA, INC.

Plaintiff Dawn Riley alleged employment discrimination based on race against HSBC USA, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Riley's termination—poor job performance. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment in part to dismiss HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant and denying it as to HSBC Bank USA, National Association, finding material issues of fact regarding pretextual discrimination. Chief Judge William M. Skretny accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the objections, and partially granted/denied the motion for summary judgment, terminating HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant. The case will proceed against HSBC Bank USA, National Association.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPretextDisparate TreatmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawReduction in ForcePerformance Review
References
0
Case No. 05-21-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

Murphy Oil USA, Inc. D/B/A Murphy Oil USA 7350 v. Donnetta Stegall

Donnetta Stegall, an employee of Murphy Oil USA, Inc., sued her employer for premises liability after falling in the store's parking lot and injuring her ankle before her scheduled shift. Murphy Oil appealed the trial court's judgment in Stegall's favor, asserting that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA) provided the exclusive remedy, thereby barring Stegall's common law claim. The central legal question was whether Stegall's injury occurred within the "course and scope of employment," which would activate the TWCA's exclusive remedy provision, specifically considering the "going-to-and-from-work" exclusion and the "access doctrine" exception. The appellate court determined that the "access doctrine" did not apply because the parking lot was accessible to the general public, not exclusively designated for employees. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Stegall's injury was not work-related under the TWCA, and thus the exclusive remedy provision did not preclude her premises liability claim.

Premises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionCourse and Scope of EmploymentAccess DoctrineGoing-to-and-from-work RuleEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 03-03-00515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2004

USA Waste Services of Houston, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

USA Waste Services of Houston, Inc. (USA) appealed a summary judgment ruling in a tax protest suit. USA sought a sales tax refund for steam cleaning services it purchased after spilling waste on customer properties, claiming eligibility under the sale-for-resale exemption. The Comptroller argued these services were not essential to USA's primary waste removal service. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that USA failed to prove the steam cleaning was an integral part of its service, thus denying the refund claim.

Tax ProtestSales TaxSale for Resale ExemptionSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAdministrative LawWaste Removal ServicesTravis CountyTexas Court of AppealsComptroller of Public Accounts
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

USA Waste Services of Houston, Inc. v. Strayhorn

In this tax protest suit, USA Waste Services of Houston, Inc. appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas. USA sought a sales tax refund under the sale-for-resale exemption for steam cleaning services it purchased after spilling waste on customers’ property. The district court granted the Comptroller’s motion for summary judgment and denied USA’s motion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that USA failed to demonstrate that the steam cleaning was an integral part of its waste removal service, as it was ordered only after customer complaints and not as an essential, re-billed service or an integral part of their existing contracts.

Sales TaxTax ExemptionSale-for-ResaleStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentWaste RemovalSteam Cleaning ServicesAppellate ReviewTexas Tax CodeComptroller of Public Accounts
References
45
Case No. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

Star Houston, Inc.// Cross-Appellant,Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC, and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles// Star Houston, Inc., and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Case No. 14-13-00044-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2014

Johannes Joe Elmgren and Valarie Elmgren, Individually and as Next Friends of Their Minor ChildrenAPE Rehear v. INEOS USA, LLC F/K/A Innovene USA, LLC, INEOS Polymers, Inc., A/K/A/ INEOS Olefins, Ineos Olefins & Polymers USA, a Division of Ineos USA, LLC and Jonathan Bubba Pavlovsky

Joe Elmgren, an employee of a subcontractor, suffered severe burns from an explosion and super-heated gas release while replacing valves at an Ineos plant. The Elmgrens (Joe, Valarie, and their minor children) sued Ineos and Jonathan "Bubba" Pavlovsky for negligence and wrongful termination. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ineos and Pavlovsky, applying Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Ineos on premises-liability claims as the Elmgrens failed to show actual knowledge of the danger. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for Pavlovsky, stating that Chapter 95 does not apply to employees, and also reversed the summary judgment for both Ineos and Pavlovsky regarding negligent-activity and negligent-undertaking claims, finding Chapter 95 does not automatically bar these distinct negligence theories.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 95Negligent ActivityNegligent UndertakingPersonal InjurySubcontractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityActual Knowledge
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Pavlov v. Debt Resolvers USA, Inc.

Claimant Dmitri Pavlov sued Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. after the defendant failed to return funds deposited for credit card debt resolution, alleging the defendant's services were ineffective and its fees excessive. The court determined that Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. engaged in "budget planning" as defined by New York law but was not licensed or properly incorporated as a not-for-profit entity for such activities. Consequently, the agreement between Pavlov and Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. was declared illegal and unenforceable. The court ruled in favor of Pavlov, ordering a refund of the deposited funds totaling $1,693.60. Additionally, the defendant was found to have engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349, leading to an extra $50 award for the claimant, bringing the total judgment to $1,743.60 plus interest.

Small ClaimsDebt ResolutionBudget PlanningUnlicensed ActivityConsumer ProtectionDeceptive Business PracticesContract EnforceabilityNew York LawCredit RepairDebt Settlement
References
2
Case No. 03-10-00768-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2011

Tau Kappa Epsilon and Adam Wilson Fomby v. USA Bus Charter, Inc.

Appellants Tau Kappa Epsilon and Adam Wilson Fomby sued USA Bus Charter, Inc. over problems with chartered buses, including deceptive pricing, late arrivals, and insufficient seating, which initially led to a no-answer default judgment against USA Bus. The district court subsequently granted USA Bus's motion for a new trial, set aside the default judgment, and compelled arbitration, dismissing the suit. Appellants appealed these rulings, arguing that the district court abused its discretion in granting the new trial and enforcing the arbitration agreement. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that USA Bus's corporate counsel's mistake of law regarding Arizona procedural rules constituted a sufficient excuse under the Craddock elements to justify a new trial. Furthermore, the court determined that the appellants' challenges to the arbitration agreement (illusoriness and unconscionability) were broad contract challenges that must be decided by an arbitrator, and upheld the requirement for arbitration in Maricopa County, Arizona, under Arizona law.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActChoice of LawForum Selection ClauseCraddock ElementsConscious IndifferenceMistake of LawMeritorious Defense
References
37
Case No. ADJ746026 (SJO 0221595) ADJ1315805 (SJO 0221596) ADJ2490198 (SJO 0221597) ADJ1525795 (SJO 0234303)
Regular
Feb 03, 2010

GILBERT GASKA vs. EAST SIDE UNION HIGH SCHOOL, ACE/USA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCATION

This case involves claims for reimbursement between two insurers covering applicant's industrial injuries. CIGA, representing an insolvent insurer, sought reimbursement from ACE/USA for medical benefits paid. The arbitrator initially awarded CIGA approximately $105,000, later amended to $138,555.15 due to a clerical error. ACE/USA petitioned for reconsideration, arguing CIGA's claim was untimely and improperly based on contribution or subrogation. The Board dismissed CIGA's petition as moot because the corrected award had already been issued. The Board denied ACE/USA's petition, clarifying CIGA's claim was for reimbursement under Insurance Code section 1063.1, not untimely contribution or subrogation, and that ACE/USA was liable due to providing "other insurance" for the same injuries.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAACE/USAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyinsolvencycumulative injuryspecific injuryreimbursementcontribution
References
3
Case No. 01-15-00058-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2014

Jamie Genender v. Larry Kirkwood and USA Store Fixtures, LLC

This case involves an appeal from a dispute over the purchase of used shelving. Applicant Jamie Genender, for her business Critter Stuff, LLC, purchased shelving from Appellee USA Store Fixtures, LLC. Following dissatisfaction with the goods and a credit card chargeback, USA Store Fixtures sued Genender and Critter Stuff. Genender counterclaimed, alleging DTPA violations, fraud, and trespass. The District Court granted summary judgment against Genender on various claims, finding some DTPA claims time-barred and dismissing others on procedural grounds (res judicata, no evidence for trespass). The appellate court affirmed the finding of actual damages against Genender for breach of contract but reversed the award of attorney's fees to USA Store Fixtures due to a lack of proof of presentment of the claim, modifying the trial court's judgment accordingly. The appellate court also addressed jurisdictional issues related to new claims brought in a de novo appeal from Justice Court to County Court.

Breach of contractDeceptive Trade Practices ActStatute of LimitationsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelTrespassDebt Collection PracticesCredit Card DisputeAttorney's FeesJurisdiction
References
110
Showing 1-10 of 456 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