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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwestern Indemnity Co. v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case involves an appeal from an order sustaining a plea of privilege filed by the Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) to be sued in Dallas County, its established residence, rather than McLennan County where the suit was originally filed. The appellant, an insurance company, sought indemnity for a workmen’s compensation settlement concerning a deceased employee. The central legal issue was whether TEIA constitutes a private corporation or a state agency for venue purposes under Texas law. The court, analyzing Article 8308, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats., determined that TEIA possesses all characteristics of a private corporation, including the ability to sue and be sued, elected directors, and profit distribution. Consequently, TEIA was deemed a 'person' entitled to claim venue privilege in its county of residence. The trial court’s decision to sustain TEIA's plea of privilege and transfer the case to Dallas County was affirmed, as the appellant failed to demonstrate an exception to the general venue statute.

Workers' CompensationVenuePlea of PrivilegeCorporation StatusState AgencyTexas LawCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationDomicileIndemnity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mamakos v. Huntington Hospital

Plaintiff, Dr. Mamakos, a plastic surgeon, sued Huntington Hospital and several doctors for antitrust violations (Sherman Act sections 1 and 2), unfair competition, and breach of contract, after being removed from the emergency room on-call roster. This removal stemmed from complaints about his excessive fees. Although his staff privileges were initially threatened, he remained on staff; only his on-call privilege was affected. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing the activities did not substantially affect interstate commerce. The court granted the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient nexus with interstate commerce for the antitrust claims, and consequently dismissed the pendent state claims as well.

AntitrustSherman ActHospital PrivilegesMedical StaffOn-Call RosterPhysician FeesInterstate CommerceSubject-Matter JurisdictionDismissalGroup Boycott
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cope Construction Co. v. Power

Randy Power suffered injuries on June 13, 1975, while riding on a tailgate of a truck owned by Cope Construction Co. and driven by Herman Yeager. Power filed a workers' compensation claim and subsequently a common-law tort claim in Galveston County against Cope Construction Co. and Herman Yeager. Cope's carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, also initiated a suit in Galveston County regarding Power's employment status. The appellants (Cope and Yeager) filed a plea of privilege, which was controverted by Power. Following motions to consolidate and reconsider, which were denied, the trial court overruled the plea of privilege. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the appellants had waived their plea of privilege through actions inconsistent with maintaining it, specifically by actively participating in and challenging the consolidation of the cases.

Plea of PrivilegeWaiver of VenueWorkers' CompensationTort ClaimMotion to ConsolidateAppellate ProcedureTexas LawCivil ProcedureVenue StatuteJudicial Conduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 670 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