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. 06-02-00107-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2003

Joseph Vasquez and Guilda Vasquez, Individually and as Next Friends of Their Minor Child, Kraig Vasquez v. Six Flags Houston, Inc., D/B/A Waterworld and Ray Hedden, Individually

Kraig Vasquez, a minor and lifeguard, sustained a broken neck during a test ride at Six Flags Houston. Six Flags' insurer, TIG Premier Insurance, denied workers' compensation benefits, citing horseplay. Vasquez's parents filed common-law negligence and intentional conduct claims against Six Flags and Ray Hedden. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the injury occurred within the scope of employment and was not due to horseplay, thus the Texas Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsIntentional TortHorseplay ExceptionCourse of EmploymentTexas Labor LawAppellate AffirmationPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vasquez v. Six Flags Houston, Inc.

Kraig Vasquez, a lifeguard, suffered a broken neck during a test ride at Six Flags' Waterworld. His employer's insurer denied workers' compensation benefits, alleging horseplay. Vasquez's parents subsequently filed common-law negligence and intentional tort claims against Six Flags Houston, Inc. and lead guard Ray Hedden. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, ruling that Vasquez was within the scope of his employment and not engaged in horseplay, thus making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. The court also found insufficient evidence of intentional action by the employer.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimIntentional TortHorseplay ExceptionCourse of EmploymentTexas Workers' Compensation ActAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beroutsos v. Six Flags Theme Park, Inc.

Plaintiff Mr. Beroutsos suffered neck and back injuries after riding a roller coaster at defendant Six Flags Theme Park, Inc. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff assumed the inherent risks of the ride, which were purportedly made clear through posted warnings and a souvenir manual. The court examined the doctrine of assumption of risk, emphasizing that it involves both knowledge and appreciation of the injury-causing defect, and is typically a factual question for the jury. The court found that the defendant failed to establish that the plaintiff assumed the risk of severe neck and back injuries, especially considering an expert's affidavit citing defective ride design. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied.

Roller Coaster InjuryAssumption of RiskSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryAmusement Park LiabilityNeck InjuryBack InjuryDefective DesignWarning SufficiencyQuestion of Fact
References
7
Case No. 13-07-019-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2008

Madhavan Pisharodi, M.D. v. Eric Six, M.D. and Alejandro J. Betancourt, M.D.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of appellees, Eric Six and Alejandro Betancourt. The appellant, Madhavan Pisharodi, a doctor, sued Six and Betancourt for antitrust violations, alleging they conspired to prevent him from obtaining hospital privileges and on-call rotation at Valley Baptist Hospital in Harlingen, Texas. Six and Betancourt filed motions for summary judgment, raising multiple grounds including lack of standing, no harm to competition, statutory immunity for peer review, and statute of limitations. The trial court ultimately granted summary judgment, considering the motion and its supplements, which included arguments of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Pisharodi appealed, challenging only the res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, holding that Pisharodi waived any error by failing to challenge all possible grounds for the trial court's general order granting summary judgment.

Antitrust ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelWaiver of ErrorRule 166a(i) Texas Rules of Civil ProcedureMarket PowerPeer Review ActivitiesMedical PrivilegesConspiracy to Restrain Trade
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamberson v. Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory Lamberson, a Caucasian male, sued his employer, Six West Retail Acquisition Inc., and individuals Sheldon Solow and Jeffery Jacobs, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and New York law. Lamberson claimed he was unlawfully discharged after complaining about the reassignment of an African-American employee, Derrick Caver, from a public-facing role due to his appearance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lamberson was fired for poor managerial judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the race discrimination claims, finding Lamberson, as a Caucasian, was not a member of a protected class and failed to show a hostile work environment or infringement on his right to interracial association. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, ruling that Lamberson raised a triable issue as to whether his complaints about Caver's reassignment were protected activity and if there was a causal connection to his discharge. Consequently, retaliation claims against Six West, Solow, and Jacobs survive.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment LawUnlawful DischargeSummary JudgmentManagerial DutiesEmployee ReassignmentHostile Work Environment
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2011

Ostroy v. Six Square LLC

This case involves an appeal of an order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing a complaint related to the murder of a plaintiff's decedent by an undocumented immigrant named Pillco. The claims against defendants Bradford General Contractors Co. Inc. and Hernandez for vicarious liability were dismissed as Pillco's criminal conduct was not within the scope of employment. Claims of negligence per se under the Immigration Reform and Control Act were dismissed because the decedent was not a protected class. Negligent hiring, retention, training, and supervision claims failed due to lack of notice of Pillco's violent propensity. Claims against Six Square LLC, Edward Steinman, Joseph Alpert, and Charles Alpert for negligence as independent contractors were dismissed as the death resulted from Pillco's criminal conduct, not negligent repairs. Negligent security claims against Six Square defendants also failed due to lack of knowledge of dangerous conduct. Finally, claims for reduced burden of proof under the Noseworthy doctrine and punitive damages were dismissed due to lack of evidence of negligence or authorization/participation in Pillco's criminal conduct by defendants.

Summary JudgmentRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityImmigration Reform and Control ActNegligence Per SeNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionIndependent Contractor LiabilityNegligent Security
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1991

Edwards v. Twenty-Four Twenty-Six Main Street Associates

The plaintiff, an employee of Hayim & Company, a carpet warehouse, suffered personal injuries when he fell approximately six feet while replacing a plywood shelf at his workplace. He had initially received Workers' Compensation benefits for his injuries. Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced an action against the premises owner, Twenty-Four Twenty-Six Main Street Associates, alleging a failure to provide a safe workplace under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court granted the defendant owner's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint against them. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court concluding that Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply to routine maintenance outside of a construction or renovation context, and Labor Law § 200 liability was inapplicable as the defendant owner did not maintain direction or control over the plaintiff's duties.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySafe WorkplaceRoutine MaintenanceAppellate ReviewNegligenceNew York Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ17937030
Regular
Nov 04, 2025

MARGARET RUSSOTTO vs. PARK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION DBA SIX FLAGS DISCOVERY KINGDOM, PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by defendants Park Management Corporation and Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford. The defendants challenged the Findings and Award (F&A) of July 28, 2025, which found applicant Margaret Russotto sustained industrial injuries to her lumbar spine, hips, thigh, and scarring, resulting in 42% disability. The WCAB upheld the F&A, finding that the expert medical opinion of PQME Jagtar Dhesi, D.C., constituted substantial medical evidence supporting the existence and extent of the injuries and impairments. The Board noted the defendants' failure to provide rebuttal medical evidence or undertake further investigation prior to trial, emphasizing the duty to develop the record.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWCJAMA GuidesPermanent ImpairmentSubstantial Medical EvidencePanel Qualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Lumbar SpineHip InjuryScarring
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Able v. United States

The case involves six lesbian and gay members of the U.S. Armed Services challenging Section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. § 654) and its associated Regulations. Plaintiffs argue that the new policy, which became effective February 28, 1994, violates their First and Fifth Amendment rights by prohibiting individuals who identify as homosexual from serving. The policy creates a "rebuttable presumption" of intent to engage in homosexual acts based on a statement of homosexual orientation, making it difficult for plaintiffs to litigate their constitutional claims without risking discharge. The court found that plaintiffs demonstrated irreparable harm and raised serious questions regarding the merits of their free speech and equal protection claims. Balancing the hardships, the court decided in favor of the plaintiffs, granting a preliminary injunction against the defendants from taking adverse actions based on the plaintiffs' self-identification as gay or lesbian during the legal proceedings.

HomosexualityMilitary PolicyFirst AmendmentFifth AmendmentEqual ProtectionFree SpeechPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDon't Ask Don't TellLGBTQ+ Rights
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nears v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc.

Sharon Nears appealed the entry of summary judgments in favor of Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. (HHFI) and Six Continents Hotels, Inc. Nears had sued for wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging her supervisor, Jack Marshall, engaged in abusive behavior while she worked at a Holiday Inn hotel managed by ETEX Hotel Management Co., Inc. Nears contended that HHFI was vicariously liable for Marshall's and ETEX's actions based on theories of actual and apparent authority. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgments, finding Nears failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding HHFI's control over Marshall's supervisory interactions with Nears, thus precluding a finding of actual or apparent agency.

Summary Judgment AppealVicarious LiabilityActual AuthorityApparent AuthorityAgency RelationshipFranchisor LiabilityWrongful TerminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployee SupervisionHotel Management
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 668 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