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. 11-24-00054-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Lone Star Well Service LLC v. RMTDC Operations D/B/A Total Energy Services, LLC and Daniel Ramirez

This appeal concerns the application of the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (TOAIA) to an oilfield indemnity agreement. Lone Star Well Service LLC appealed a judgment that obligated it to defend and indemnify RMTDC Operations d/b/a Total Energy Services, LLC and Daniel Ramirez. The appellate court affirmed that Total and Ramirez are third-party beneficiaries to Lone Star's Master Services Agreement with Parsley Energy Operations, LLC, and thus are covered by the mutual, insurance-backed indemnity obligations. However, the court reversed the judgment in part, remanding the case to the trial court to determine the specific amount and limitation of Lone Star's indemnity obligation.

Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActIndemnity AgreementThird-Party BeneficiaryContractual InterpretationMutual Indemnity ObligationInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesRipeness Doctrine
References
47
Case No. 08-11-00092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2012

Business Staffing, Inc., Transglobal Indemnity Limited, Inc., Harry Sewill, Richard Gable Chapman, Bart Bogus, BSI Insurance Services, Inc., Transglobal Mortgage, Inc., and LHR Enterprises, Inc. v. Jackson Hot Oil Service D/B/A Jackson Brothers Hot Oil Service and Cody Jackson

This case involves an appeal from a final judgment against Business Staffing, Inc. (BSI) and related entities (Appellants) in favor of Jackson Hot Oil Service and individuals (Appellees). Appellees sued for breach of contract, DTPA violations, breach of good faith, negligence, and fraud, stemming from Appellants' alleged failure to provide workers' compensation insurance. The jury found Appellants engaged in unconscionable and deceptive acts and committed fraud, particularly against Cody Jackson, who suffered severe burns in an on-the-job accident. The appellate court affirmed most of the jury's findings, including those on statute of limitations, DTPA violations, and fraud, but reformed the judgment to adjust the calculation of damages under the DTPA and reflect a remittitur for Jackson Brothers.

Workers' Compensation FraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance MisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil LawStatute of Limitations DefenseExemplary DamagesActual Damages
References
53
Case No. 04-17-00291-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2018

Roberto Avila Rodriguez v. Panther Expedited Services Inc., Amigo Staffing, Inc., Dicex International, Inc.

Appellant Roberto Avila Rodriguez brought a negligence action against Panther Expedited Services, Inc., Amigo Staffing, Inc., and Dicex International, Inc., seeking to recover for injuries sustained while operating a forklift. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Dicex and Panther, dismissing Dicex’s third-party claims against Amigo Staffing as moot. Rodriguez appealed, challenging the summary judgments and the dismissal of Dicex's claims. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for Panther, finding no vicarious liability under federal motor carrier regulations or common law, and insufficient evidence of Panther's own negligence. However, the court reversed the summary judgment for Dicex and remanded that portion of the case, concluding that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act provision Dicex relied upon was inapplicable to the date of injury.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActTemporary Employment ServicesFederal Motor Carrier Safety RegulationsVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNondelegable DutyIndependent ContractorRight of Control
References
58
Case No. 2019-08-1128
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2020

Harris, David v. Provide Staffing Services, LLC

David Harris, an employee of Provide Staffing Services, LLC, alleged a work-related eye injury on May 7, 2019, and sought medical and temporary disability benefits. During an expedited hearing, Mr. Harris provided multiple conflicting accounts of how his injury occurred, ranging from hitting his eye on a pole at an unknown location to a forklift accident, with initial medical records lacking any mention of a workplace incident. The employer's investigation, including testimony from Pat Morris, found no witnesses, damage to equipment or the pole, or reported injury, contradicting Mr. Harris's later claims. The Court determined that due to the significant inconsistencies in Mr. Harris's testimony and the absence of corroborating evidence, he failed to prove that his injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Harris's request for benefits, scheduling a telephone Status Hearing for November 16, 2020.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingEye InjuryForklift AccidentCausation DisputeInconsistent TestimonyBenefit DenialLack of EvidenceMedical RecordsEmployer Investigation
References
1
Case No. 15-25-00003-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2024

Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC, (In Its Own Capacity and as Assignee) v. EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Permian Processing, LLC

This is a joint petition for a permissive interlocutory appeal stemming from an order by the Texas Business Court, Eleventh Division. The underlying lawsuit, filed in Harris County in May 2021, involves Lone Star NGL Product Services LLC (and its assignees) against EagleClaw Midstream Ventures LLC and CR Permian Processing, LLC, concerning natural gas purchase agreements. The parties entered a 'Subsequent Agreement' on September 13, 2024, to bring their dispute to the Texas Business Court, leveraging a statutory provision for jurisdiction by agreement. They filed a Joint Notice of Removal, but the Trial Judge issued an order on December 20, 2024, remanding the case. The judge ruled that House Bill 19's Section 8 limits the Business Court's subject-matter jurisdiction to actions commenced on or after September 1, 2024, which this case predates. However, recognizing substantial grounds for differing opinions and the need for clear precedent for the nascent Business Court, the judge certified a permissive interlocutory appeal on the jurisdictional question and stayed the remand order pending the appeal's resolution.

Jurisdictional DisputeBusiness CourtInterlocutory AppealContract LawEnergy LawNatural GasTexas LawStatutory InterpretationPermissive AppealEffective Date
References
40
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2009

Plotkin v. Joekel

The case involves a complex dispute among individuals and entities in the employee staffing industry. Applicant Garry Plotkin initiated a lawsuit against Charles Joekel, Texas Staffing Services, Inc., Kenneth Joekel, and F.W. Services, Inc., alleging breach of contract for unpaid sales proceeds and compensation for transferred accounts, as well as breach of fiduciary duty and fraudulent conveyance. Counterclaims and third-party claims were filed by the defendants against Plotkin and other related parties for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, tortious interference, and conspiracy. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for all asserted claims, counterclaims, and third-party claims. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appellate court found ambiguities regarding Garry Plotkin's standing and Charles Joekel's individual liability, leading to a reversal of the summary judgment on Plotkin's breach-of-express-contract claim concerning transferred accounts. Additionally, the court reversed summary judgment on Kenneth Joekel's and F.W. Services' counterclaim against Plotkin for tortious interference with an existing non-competition agreement. All other summary judgment rulings were affirmed.

Employee Staffing BusinessBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary Judgment ReviewContract AmbiguityCorporate LiabilityTortious InterferenceCivil ConspiracyFraudulent ConveyanceNo-Evidence Motion
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Star Multi Care Services, Inc. v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield

This case involves Star Multi Care Services, Inc. (plaintiff) suing Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield (defendant) and Demetria Sarris and Van Sarris (Sarris defendants) for breach of contract regarding home health care services. Star initially filed the action in New York State Supreme Court, alleging Empire breached a contract to pay for services provided to Ms. Sarris under an ERISA plan. Empire removed the case to federal court, arguing ERISA preemption, and filed a motion to dismiss, while Star moved to remand to state court. The District Court denied Star's motion to remand, finding the claim was preempted by ERISA. The court granted Empire's motion to dismiss, concluding that Empire was not a proper defendant under ERISA and Star failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The remaining state law claims against the Sarris defendants were remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, as the federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction.

ERISA preemptionRemoval jurisdictionMotion to remandMotion to dismissRule of unanimitySubject matter jurisdictionBreach of contractHealth care benefitsEmployee welfare benefit planAdministrative remedies exhaustion
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beneficial Personnel Services of Texas, Inc. v. Rey

Ramon Rey, an oil field worker, sued Beneficial Personnel Services of Texas, Inc. (BPS) and Business Staffing, Inc. (BSI) after suffering a back injury. Rey's original employer, White Well Service, transitioned its employees to BPS/BSI, an employee leasing company, with promises of equivalent workers' compensation benefits. However, after Rey's injury, BPS/BSI significantly underpaid his benefits, delayed necessary surgery, and used an unlicensed insurance carrier. The jury found BPS committed fraud and that BPS and BSI operated as a single business enterprise, awarding Rey actual and exemplary damages, along with damages for mental anguish and damage to credit reputation. The trial court affirmed the judgment against both defendants, and this opinion upholds that decision, finding sufficient evidence for fraud, exemplary damages, and mental anguish, and that single business enterprise theory is a valid means of imposing tort liability.

Fraudulent InducementWorkers' Compensation PolicySingle Business Enterprise TheoryEmployee Leasing CompanyExemplary Damages AwardMental Anguish RecoveryCredit Reputation InjuryBreach of Employment ContractCorporate Veil PiercingUnlicensed Insurance Carrier
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Riojas v. LONE STAR GAS CO., ETC.

Pedro and Abundia Riojas sued Lone Star Gas Company for personal injury damages after suffering carbon monoxide poisoning. The incident occurred following the termination of their gas service due to an unpaid bill, despite prior assurances from Lone Star regarding installment payment options. To obtain heat and cook during cold weather, the Riojases brought a charcoal fire in a bucket inside their home, leading to their injuries. They alleged common law torts and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Lone Star moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of causal connection between the termination of gas service and the plaintiffs' injuries. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiffs' act of bringing the charcoal bucket into their home constituted a new and independent intervening cause, breaking the causal chain and becoming the sole cause of their injuries, thereby absolving Lone Star of liability.

Summary JudgmentDeceptive Trade Practices ActCausationProducing CauseIntervening CauseCarbon Monoxide PoisoningGas Service TerminationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewConsumer Protection
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 9,321 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