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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District v. Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund

This case addresses an insurance coverage dispute between Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco Consolidated Independent School District (Ben Bolt) and the Texas Political Subdivisions Property/Casualty Joint Self-Insurance Fund (the Fund). Ben Bolt sued the Fund after a claim for extensive water and mold damage was denied, leading the Fund to assert governmental immunity. The Supreme Court of Texas determined that the Fund is a distinct governmental unit, thereby entitled to governmental immunity. However, the Court concluded that Section 271.152 of the Local Government Code provides a clear and unambiguous statutory waiver of the Fund’s immunity from suit for breach of contract claims in this context. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Governmental ImmunityInsurance CoverageSelf-Insurance FundPolitical SubdivisionsInterlocal Cooperation ActBreach of ContractStatutory WaiverTrial Court JurisdictionDe Novo ReviewTexas Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Mexia v. Tooke

The City of Mexia contracted with J.E. Tooke and Sons for curbside collection, but later terminated the agreement citing budgetary constraints. Tooke sued the City for breach of contract, and the trial court denied the City's plea to jurisdiction and ruled in favor of Tooke. On appeal, the central question was whether section 51.075 of the Texas Local Government Code waives sovereign immunity for home-rule municipalities. The appellate court examined the statutory language and Supreme Court precedents on immunity waiver, concluding that the 'plead and be impleaded' language does not constitute a clear and unambiguous waiver. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that the City waived immunity through partial performance or by acting in a proprietary capacity, as solid waste removal is a governmental function. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityHome-Rule MunicipalitiesWaiver of ImmunityBreach of ContractTexas Local Government CodeGovernmental FunctionsProprietary FunctionsPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.

This case addresses post-trial motions concerning the liability of Atlantic Container Lines (ACL), a stevedore, to Bucyrus-Erie Co., a truck-crane manufacturer and third-party plaintiff. The central issue is whether ACL enjoys immunity from contribution or indemnity claims under 33 U.S.C. § 905, following a jury finding that both Bucyrus-Erie's negligent manufacturing and ACL's incompetent employee (Antonio Fuet) equally contributed to the injury of Adolfo Millan and death of Joseph Zapico, ACL's employees. ACL argued it was immune as a compensation-paying stevedore and lacked an indemnity agreement. The court found that Bucyrus-Erie's claim was not 'on account of' the employee injury, but rather for partial indemnification based on ACL's implied warranty of workmanlike performance or a quasi-contractual theory. The court concluded that extending third-party benefits or apportioning damages based on fault would not violate statutory immunity and would be equitable, especially given manufacturers' lack of control over stevedoring functions and increasing strict liability. Therefore, ACL's motion for judgment in its favor was denied, Bucyrus-Erie Co.'s motion to amend its pleadings was granted, and Celia Zapico's motion to strike the jury's finding of contributory negligence was denied.

Stevedore LiabilityMaritime IndemnityLongshoremen's ActThird-Party ClaimsProduct Manufacturer NegligenceEmployee IncompetenceContribution LawWarranty of Workmanlike PerformanceFederal Civil ProcedurePost-Trial Litigation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lara v. City of New York

Plaintiffs Carolina Lara and her father Marino Lara sued the City of New York and its contractor Graham-Windham for negligent foster care, alleging Carolina was sexually abused while placed by Graham-Windham. The City moved for summary judgment, asserting statutory immunity under Social Services Law 419, common-law immunity for discretionary acts, and non-compliance with General Municipal Law 50-h due to Carolina's failure to appear for a comptroller's examination. Graham-Windham also moved for summary judgment based on statutory immunity. The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, finding it immune from liability due to both statutory and common-law protections and Carolina's non-compliance. However, Graham-Windham's motion for summary judgment was denied, as questions of fact remained regarding whether its actions constituted gross negligence or a lack of good faith, particularly concerning Carolina's sleeping arrangements and living conditions.

Child Protective ServicesFoster Care NegligenceStatutory ImmunitySummary JudgmentGross NegligenceWillful MisconductGovernmental ImmunityQualified ImmunityChild AbuseSexual Abuse
References
17
Case No. 06-0418
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2009

Hcbeck, Ltd. v. Charles Rice

Justice Johnson dissents from the Court's decision, arguing that HCBeck, a general contractor, should not be granted statutory employer immunity under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent asserts that HCBeck did not substantively "provide" workers' compensation insurance to its subcontractor's employee, Charles Rice, as required by Tex. Lab. Code § 406.123. Instead, the owner, FMR, secured and paid for the insurance. Justice Johnson argues that for statutory immunity, a general contractor must contribute something of value and exercise actual control over the insurance, rather than merely contractually requiring another party to provide it. The dissent concludes that HCBeck was a bystander in the insurance provision for Rice's injury and therefore not Rice's statutory employer.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerGeneral ContractorSubcontractorInsurance CoverageQuid Pro QuoTexas Supreme CourtDissenting OpinionImmunityConstruction Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

HCBeck, Ltd. v. Rice

Justice Johnson, joined by Justice Medina, dissents from the majority opinion, arguing that it improperly extends statutory employer immunity to HCBeck. The dissent contends that HCBeck, a general contractor, did not substantively 'provide' workers' compensation insurance to its subcontractor Haley Greer under Tex. Lab.Code § 406.123, as it merely facilitated communication regarding an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP) provided by FMR. The dissent emphasizes the legislative intent for a quid pro quo in workers' compensation, where an employer provides insurance in exchange for immunity. It asserts that HCBeck's involvement was too minimal to warrant statutory employer status, as it neither secured placement of the insurance nor assured its being in force. The dissent would affirm the court of appeals' judgment, holding that HCBeck was not Rice's statutory employer.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerQuid Pro QuoInsurance CoverageSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityTexas Labor CodeLegislative IntentDissenting OpinionImmunity from Suit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cassidy v. City of Balch Springs

Appellants Martin Cassidy, Richard Hill, and Ronald Lindsey, employed as police officers for the City of Balch Springs, sued the City and City Manager K.M. Hubert. They alleged the City failed to comply with statutory pay plans under Chapter 143 of the Texas Local Government Code, seeking compensation. The City and Hubert filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity. The trial court granted the plea, dismissing the claims. On appeal, the appellants contended that governmental immunity was waived for their statutory claims. Citing recent Texas Supreme Court precedent, specifically City of Houston v. Williams, the appellate court concluded that the City was immune from the claims for compensation. Consequently, the trial court's order dismissing the appellants' claims was affirmed.

Governmental ImmunityCivil ServiceTexas Local Government CodeWages and BenefitsPolice OfficersMunicipal LawPlea to the JurisdictionStatutory ClaimsWaiver of ImmunityCompensation Dispute
References
15
Case No. 01-02-01007-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2004

Sheldon A. Etie v. Walsh & Albert Co., Inc

This case addresses the interpretation of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act regarding the scope of statutory employer/employee status and immunity from suit for subcontractors. The appellant, Sheldon A. Etie, was injured by an employee of Walsh & Albert Company, Ltd., a lower-tier subcontractor, while working on a construction site. Etie received workers' compensation benefits but also filed a negligence suit against Walsh & Albert. The central question was whether the general contractor's workers' compensation policy, which covered all subcontractors and their employees, extended immunity to lower-tier subcontractors. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the statutory employer/employee relationship and subsequent immunity from suit extend throughout all tiers of subcontractors when covered by a single workers' compensation insurance policy provided by the general contractor.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityStatutory Employer DoctrineSubcontractor CoverageExclusive Remedy ProvisionFellow Servant ImmunitySummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code InterpretationConstruction Site InjuryTiered Subcontractor LiabilityIndependent Contractor Status
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olveda v. United States

Plaintiff Mr. Olveda filed a Federal Tort Claim Action against the United States after being exposed to plutonium while employed by Dow Chemical Company, an independent contractor managing the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity as a 'statutory employer' under Colorado law. The court found that under Colorado Revised Statute § 8-48-101, the United States, by ensuring workmen's compensation insurance for Dow's employees (as an allowable cost under its contract with Dow), qualified as a statutory employer. This status grants immunity from common law tort suits. Citing various Colorado and federal precedents, the court affirmed that the 'statutory employer' doctrine applies to the United States in the same manner as a private individual. Therefore, Mr. Olveda is limited to his workmen's compensation claim, and the court granted summary judgment to the United States.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatutory EmployerWorkers' CompensationRadiation ExposurePlutonium ContaminationSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorColorado Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Etie v. Walsh & Albert Co., Ltd.

Sheldon A. Etie, an employee of Way Engineering, sustained injuries on a construction site and received workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a third-party negligence suit against Walsh & Albert Company, Ltd., a lower-tier subcontractor, whose employee was responsible for the accident. The central issue on appeal is whether the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act extends statutory employer/employee status and immunity from suit to all subcontractors and their employees, regardless of tier, when a general contractor provides a comprehensive workers' compensation policy. The court affirmed the summary judgment for Walsh & Albert, holding that the statutory employer/employee relationship and immunity apply throughout all tiers of subcontractors when covered by the general contractor's workers' compensation insurance. Consequently, all covered workers are deemed "fellow servants," entitled to benefits and immune from civil suit, making Etie's workers' compensation benefits his exclusive remedy.

Workers' Compensation ActSummary Judgment AppealStatutory EmployerSubcontractor LiabilityExclusive Remedy ProvisionGeneral Contractor InsuranceFellow Servant ImmunityTiered SubcontractorsConstruction IndustryLabor Code Interpretation
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,402 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