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. W2012-01173-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2013

Celia Moody Rodgers and Sherry Moody Gonzalez, Sole Survivors of Joan Lois Moody v. GCA Services Group, Inc., and Weakley County Tennessee

The case involves an appeal concerning injuries sustained by a deceased employee due to mold exposure during her employment. Her heirs, Celia Moody Rodgers and Sherry Moody Gonzalez, filed common law tort claims against the employers, GCA Services Group, Inc. and Weakley County Tennessee, alleging intentional injury. The employers sought dismissal, asserting that the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy. The trial court granted the dismissal, finding the tort claims barred. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, reiterating that the intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy provision requires 'actual intent' to injure, and mere gross negligence or knowing dangerous conditions are insufficient to overcome the workers' compensation exclusivity.

Workers' CompensationIntentional TortExclusive RemedyMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewActual IntentGross NegligenceEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityMold Exposure
References
24
Case No. 04-17-00565-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2019

David Mora, Texas Sterling Construction Co. A/K/A Texas Crushed Concrete, and Sterling Construction Company, Inc. A/K/A Sterling Delaware Holding Company, Inc. v. Martin Valdivia Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, Both Individually and as Sole Heirs of the Estate of Martin Valdivia Jr.

This appeal stems from a personal injury lawsuit where two construction workers were injured and one killed when an unsecured toolbox fell from their foreman's trailer. The plaintiffs, Martin Valdivia Sr. and Maria Cervantes Valdivia, sued the foreman David Mora and employers Texas Sterling Construction Co. and Sterling Construction Company, Inc. for negligence and gross negligence. The jury found the driver of the third vehicle not negligent and Texas Sterling grossly negligent, awarding substantial damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusions on the course and scope of employment, the defense of sudden emergency, and gross negligence attributable to Texas Sterling through its Corporate Safety Director, José González.

Personal InjuryNegligenceGross NegligenceWorkers' Compensation ActCourse and Scope of EmploymentSudden Emergency DefenseEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewDamagesLegal Sufficiency
References
55
Case No. No. 84
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings

The New York Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order, reinstating the Supreme Court's decision in a residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) put-back action. The core issue was whether allegations of gross negligence could render a contractual "sole remedy provision" unenforceable, allowing for broader compensatory and punitive damages. The Court held that the public policy exception for gross negligence only applies to exculpatory or nominal damages clauses, not to contractual limitations on remedies that provide for more than nominal relief and are intended to make the injured party whole. It found the sole remedy provision (cure or repurchase of defective loans) to be neither exculpatory nor nominal. Additionally, claims for punitive damages and attorneys' fees were dismissed, as no independent tort was established for punitive damages and the contract did not clearly authorize attorneys' fees.

RMBS litigationcontractual limitationsgross negligencesole remedyexculpatory clausenominal damagesbreach of contractpublic policypunitive damagesattorneys' fees
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Lee

This Texas Supreme Court opinion addresses a conflict among courts of appeals regarding the admissibility of employer negligence as a sole cause defense in personal injury lawsuits where the employer is immune under workers' compensation. The Court clarifies its prior decision in Varela v. American Petrofina Co., ruling that it does not bar a defendant from introducing evidence that the plaintiff's employer's negligence was the sole cause of injury. The case involves Arthur B. Lee, who sued Dresser Industries, Inc., a silica supplier, after developing silicosis from working at Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. The trial court had erroneously excluded evidence of Tyler Pipe's negligence as a sole cause. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case, also providing guidance on jury instructions for sole cause and contributory negligence in future proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSole CauseContributory NegligenceProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnSilicosisEmployer NegligenceComparative ResponsibilityJury InstructionsEvidence Admissibility
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Newman v. Tropical Visions, Inc.

The Chief Justice concurs with the majority's opinion except for its holding that a release signed by Mrs. Newman waived Tropical Visions' liability for gross negligence. The Chief Justice argues that under existing Texas case law and public policy, gross negligence cannot be waived, citing *Smith v. Golden Triangle Raceway* which held such a release void. The opinion emphasizes that gross negligence and simple negligence are distinct and separable issues in Texas, requiring different proofs of mental state and character of the act. It further asserts that actual damages can be awarded for gross negligence, serving as a predicate for exemplary damages, and notes exceptions where actual damages need not be recoverable for punitive damages. The dissent draws an analogy to worker's compensation claims where gross negligence claims survive despite waivers for ordinary negligence. The Chief Justice concludes that public policy forbids the waiver of gross negligence, and the appellees failed to establish a defense of release for the gross negligence claim as a matter of law because 'gross negligence' was not explicitly mentioned in the release.

WaiverGross NegligenceOrdinary NegligencePublic PolicyReleaseExemplary DamagesActual DamagesSummary JudgmentTexas LawContract Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sappington v. Younger Transportation, Inc.

Michael Sappington filed a negligence suit against Younger Transportation, Inc. following an industrial accident where a crane chain snapped, causing severe eye injury. Younger argued that the negligence of Sappington's employer, Rig Manufacturing, Inc. (RMI), was the sole proximate cause of the accident, citing improper chain usage and maintenance by RMI employees. The jury found Younger negligent in maintaining a 'fifth wheel' hitch but determined this negligence was not the proximate cause of Sappington's injury. Sappington appealed the trial court's inclusion of a sole proximate cause instruction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the instruction was properly supported by pleadings and evidence, and that evidence of employer negligence was admissible for causation, though not for reducing damages under comparative negligence statutes.

NegligenceThird Party ActionProximate CauseJury InstructionEmployer NegligenceWorker's CompensationComparative NegligenceAppealIndustrial AccidentPersonal Injury
References
7
Case No. 01-23-00245-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

Johnnie Melton and Shelley Melton v. Big Creek Construction, Ltd. and WFMM, LLC

Appellants Johnnie and Shelley Melton sued Appellees Big Creek Construction, Ltd. and WFMM, LLC for negligence after Johnnie Melton was severely injured in a head-on vehicle collision with Tomas Treto-Trinidad, an employee of Big Creek. The Meltons brought claims for direct liability (negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent supervision or control, negligent training, and gross negligence) and vicarious liability. The central issue was whether Trinidad was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the collision, invoking the 'coming and going rule' and its 'special mission exception.' Big Creek and WFMM moved for summary judgment, arguing Trinidad was commuting and had violated company policy by using a company trailer and fuel card for personal travel while intoxicated. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Big Creek and WFMM. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Trinidad was commuting and not acting in the course and scope of his employment, and the 'special mission exception' did not apply as his actions were not an assigned duty for the employer's benefit.

Summary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNegligenceCourse of EmploymentComing and Going RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionAutomobile AccidentDrunk DrivingEmployee Misconduct
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Batista v. City of New York

This multi-party litigation stems from a fatal rear-end collision on the Jackie Robinson Parkway. Welsbach Electric Corp. employees were setting up a lane closure when Vladimir Magliore stopped his van behind their truck and was struck by a motorcycle operated by Luis Torres, who died, and his passenger, Arelis Batista, was injured. Batista and Casilda Torres, as the decedent's administratrix, initiated separate actions against the City of New York, various Welsbach entities (Welsbach defendants), and Magliore. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Magliore, finding the decedent solely negligent, and subsequently granted summary judgment to the Welsbach defendants and the City, concluding their alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. On appeal, the court found the Supreme Court erred on the application of collateral estoppel regarding the Welsbach defendants and the City's negligence but ultimately affirmed the summary judgment grants, agreeing that any alleged negligence by the Welsbach defendants and the City merely furnished the condition for the accident and was not its proximate cause, which was solely attributed to the decedent's negligence.

Rear-end collisionSummary judgmentProximate causeNegligenceCollateral estoppelConsolidated actionsAppellate reviewTraffic accidentConstruction zoneMotorcycle accident
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 7,206 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