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. 13-09-00213-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2010

Unique Staff Leasing, LLC and Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd. v. Richard Onder

This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict in a breach of contract dispute between Unique Staff Leasing, LLC, and Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd. (Appellants) and Richard Onder (Appellee). The core of the dispute was an 'Independent Contractor and Commission Agreement' and prior oral agreements regarding commission payments. Unique argued that the agreements were unenforceable due to the statute of frauds and that Onder committed a prior material breach. The court rejected Unique's arguments, finding that the written agreement was not subject to the statute of frauds as its terms allowed performance within one year and that the jury's implicit finding of no material breach by Onder was reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, as modified, which awarded Onder $52,025.11 in lost commissions and additional attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractStatute of FraudsElectronic AgreementIndependent ContractorCommission AgreementJury VerdictLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyContract InterpretationOral Agreement
References
73
Case No. 01-08-00296-CV; 01-08-00418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2008

in Re Texas Best Staff Leasing , Inc. D/B/A Alt-Source

Texas Best Staff Leasing, Inc. d/b/a Alt-Source (Alt-Source) sought relief from the trial court's denial of its motion to compel arbitration through an interlocutory appeal and a petition for writ of mandamus. Alt-Source argued that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to compel. The appellate court determined that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governed the agreement and that Alt-Source had waived its argument under FAA section 5 by failing to present it to the trial court. Additionally, the court found the Texas Arbitration Act (TAA) inapplicable to the case. Consequently, the court dismissed the interlocutory appeal and denied the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Arbitration ActWaiver DoctrineMandamus ReliefInterlocutory AppealJudicial DiscretionContract EnforceabilityAlternate Arbitrator SelectionDispute Resolution System
References
19
Case No. 01-09-00360-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

AMS Construction Company, Inc. D/B/A AMS Staff Leasing (AMS) v. Osman L. Sosa K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc.

An employer, K.H.K. Scaffolding Houston, Inc., sued its staff leasing company, AMS Construction Company, Inc. d/b/a AMS Staff Leasing, for breaching their agreement to provide workers' compensation insurance for an injured employee. A jury found AMS liable for breach of contract and fraud, leading to a judgment for KHK. AMS appealed, raising issues of subject matter jurisdiction, sufficiency of evidence for breach of contract, waiver defense, and an alleged collusive agreement. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, determining that the trial court had jurisdiction and that legally sufficient evidence supported the breach of contract finding.

Workers' CompensationBreach of ContractFraudStaff Leasing AgreementEmployee LeasingSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewIndemnificationTexas LawJury Verdict
References
29
Case No. 02-10-00438-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2012

Gerardo DeLeon v. Thos. S. Byrne, Ltd., F/K/A Thos. S. Byrne, Inc. and Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd., D/B/A Unique Staffing

Appellant Gerardo DeLeon suffered a crushed foot while working on a construction site and sued the general contractor, Thos. S. Byrne, Ltd., and the staff leasing company, Unique Staff Leasing I, Ltd., for negligence. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for both defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Second District of Texas affirmed the summary judgment for Byrne regarding negligent hiring, but reversed it on the negligence claim, finding that Byrne retained sufficient contractual control over the subcontractor's work to establish a duty of care. For Unique, the court reversed the summary judgment, concluding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the employment status of Gray, another worker, with Unique. The case was therefore remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentNegligenceContractual ControlIndependent ContractorStaff LeasingEmployment LawDuty of CareConstruction AccidentBoom Lift
References
40
Case No. 2014-05-0005
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2015

Willis, Joseph v. All Staff

The employee, Joseph Kolby Willis, dislocated his kneecap at work. The employer, All Staff, denied the claim, asserting the injury was idiopathic. Initially, a trial court denied benefits, but later, after a compensation hearing, found the injury compensable and awarded medical treatment and disability benefits. The employer appealed to the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board. The Appeals Board reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the medical evidence was insufficient to establish that the employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury, especially considering the employee's pre-existing knee conditions and the medical expert's speculative testimony. The case was remanded for dismissal of the claim.

Workers' Compensation AppealKnee InjuryPatellar DislocationMedical CausationPre-existing ConditionIdiopathic InjuryArising out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentMedical Expert TestimonyBurden of Proof
References
19
Case No. 01-14-00379-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Mose A. Guillory and Mary Guillory v. Seaton LLC D/B/A Staff Management

Mose A. Guillory and Mary Guillory appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit against Seaton, LLC D/B/A Staff Management under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a. Mose Guillory, an employee of iWorks assigned to Waste Management, was injured while operating machinery and alleged he received no proper safety training. The Guillorys sued Seaton, asserting various negligence claims including negligent undertaking. The trial court granted Seaton's motion to dismiss. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the negligent-undertaking claim lacked a legal basis and upholding the constitutionality of Rule 91a against challenges regarding statutory authority, open courts, free speech, due process, and equal protection.

Rule 91aNegligent UndertakingMotion to DismissStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawOpen CourtsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFree SpeechAppellate Procedure
References
44
Case No. 2014-05-0005
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2015

Willis, Joseph Kolby v. All staff

Joseph Kolby Willis, an employee of All Staff, suffered a left knee injury on July 30, 2014, while working in a confined space. He was tying baling wire on a machine and twisted his body while rising from a squatting position, dislocating his kneecap. The court found that the work environment constituted a special employment hazard and was the sole cause of his injury. Consequently, the court deemed the injury compensable, ordering All Staff to provide continued medical care with Dr. David Moore and pay temporary partial disability benefits totaling $10,620.26 for the period from August 14, 2014, to May 1, 2015.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryPatellar DislocationTemporary Partial DisabilityMedical BenefitsCompensabilitySpecial HazardCausationTennessee LawMedical Causation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2004

Scafidi v. Baldwin Union Free School District

Plaintiff Maryann Scafidi filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC against the Baldwin Union Free School District, alleging disability discrimination and subsequent retaliation. She sought to amend her complaint to include various acts of alleged retaliation, such as office relocations, increased work responsibilities, denial of clerical staff access, a negative performance evaluation, and excessive scrutiny. The District opposed the motion, arguing that the proposed amendments were futile as the alleged acts did not constitute adverse employment actions. The Court granted the plaintiff's motion to amend in part, allowing claims related to office relocations and denial of clerical staff access to proceed as potential adverse employment actions. However, claims regarding excessive scrutiny, negative performance evaluations, and other minor complaints were denied, as they were deemed insufficient to meet the standard of an adverse employment action.

DiscriminationDisabilityRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities ActADAEmployment LawMotion to Amend ComplaintAdverse Employment ActionOffice RelocationPerformance Evaluation
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05011 [231 AD3d 1262]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

Matter of Lebeau v. Meet Caregivers Inc.

Claimant Okina Lebeau, a certified nurse assistant, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging injuries to her right leg and knee from an assault by a coworker. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the injury did not arise out of employment. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, crediting the coworker's and manager's testimonies over claimant's. The Board determined that no physical altercation occurred and that the claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, a finding supported by substantial evidence.

Employment InjuryAssault ClaimCredibility AssessmentSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardWorkplace IncidentClaimant TestimonyEmployer InvestigationFactual Determination
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2010

Chinese Staff & Worker's Ass'n v. Burden

This dissenting opinion challenges the majority's decision that the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) complied with environmental review regulations (SEQRA and CEQR) during a rezoning project in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Petitioners, including the Chinese Staff and Workers’ Association, argued that DCP's negative declaration, which stated no significant environmental impact, lacked a

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRZoningRezoningSunset Park BrooklynCommercial DevelopmentResidential DevelopmentNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact Statement
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,063 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