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

Venture Cotton Cooperative and Noble Americas Corp. v. Shelby Alan Freeman

Two groups of cotton farmers sued Venture Cotton Cooperative and Noble Americas Corp. for fraudulent inducement related to cooperative marketing contracts, seeking damages and statutory remedies. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, which the trial court denied, finding the arbitration agreements unconscionable. The court of appeals affirmed, citing the agreements' purported waiver of statutory rights and one-sided attorney's fees. This Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the limitation of statutory remedies was severable and the one-sided attorney's fee provision was not unconscionable per se. The case was remanded for the court of appeals to address other unconscionability arguments not previously considered.

ArbitrationFAAUnconscionabilityContract LawStatutory RemediesAttorney's FeesSeverabilityDTPACotton FarmersCooperative Marketing
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2009

Williamson v. American National Insurance Company

Plaintiff Jeffrey Alan Williamson sued Defendant American National Insurance Company (ANICO) alleging employment discrimination based on disability and retaliation under state and federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alongside common law claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Williamson, a Programmer Analyst, contended that ANICO discriminated against him after he suffered a stroke and recurring seizures by forcing a transfer, assigning him responsibilities as a floor captain despite his condition, mishandling a seizure incident in a company van pool, and mischaracterizing sick leave as vacation time. ANICO moved for summary judgment, asserting that Williamson's claims were barred by judicial estoppel due to his application for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, failure to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims, and a lack of evidence to support discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, negligence, or IIED, citing his termination as part of a legitimate reduction-in-force. The court granted ANICO's motion for summary judgment, ruling that several statutory claims were inapplicable, hostile work environment and retaliation claims were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and judicial estoppel precluded the ADA claim due to the inconsistency with the SSDI application. Furthermore, the court found Williamson failed to establish a 'disability' under the ADA and TCHRA, dismissed the negligence and IIED claims as barred by other statutory remedies and insufficient facts, and upheld ANICO's reduction-in-force as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Summary JudgmentJudicial EstoppelReduction-in-Force (RIF)Reasonable Accommodation
References
154
Case No. 2015-2418 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Remedial Med. Care, P.C. v. Park Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, Park Insurance Co., sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint filed by Remedial Medical Care, P.C., as assignee of Thomas Brown. The Civil Court initially denied the motion but found that the defendant had established timely mailing of denials. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendant for a bill of services rendered on August 23, 2012, as it was paid according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. However, for the remaining bills, the defendant failed to prove timely mailing of IME scheduling letters, thus failing to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled or that the assignor failed to appear. Therefore, the denial of summary judgment for the remaining claims was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Timely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermCivil CourtDenial of ClaimFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. 14-20-00177-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2022

Juan Reyes v. the Lubrizol Corporation

Juan Reyes, an employee of S&B Engineers and Constructors, LTD (S&B), was injured while working at a facility owned and operated by The Lubrizol Corporation. Reyes filed a lawsuit against Lubrizol, alleging negligence by Lubrizol's employees. Lubrizol sought summary judgment based on the exclusive-remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, arguing it qualified as a 'general contractor' under a written agreement with S&B, which involved providing workers’ compensation insurance. The trial court granted Lubrizol's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Reyes contended that Lubrizol did not meet the statutory definition of a 'general contractor' or that the agreement was ambiguous. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Lubrizol had conclusively established its entitlement to the exclusive-remedy defense as a statutory 'general contractor'.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy DefenseGeneral Contractor StatusSubcontractor AgreementSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeContract InterpretationEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityPremises Owner
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2004

Conde v. Yeshiva University

This case addresses an appeal from an order denying Yeshiva University's (YU) motion to dismiss a complaint. The court determined that the plaintiffs were not required to arbitrate their employment discrimination claims, as their collective bargaining agreement did not clearly waive their statutory right to a judicial forum. The court modified the initial order, dismissing several causes of action against YU, including those for negligent hiring, supervision, training, retention of an unfit employee, vicarious assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The negligent hiring and retention claims were dismissed due to the exclusivity of remedy under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Additionally, assault and battery claims were dismissed because the employee acted beyond the scope of employment, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was dismissed given that remedies were preserved in the surviving statutory claims for sexual harassment and retaliation.

Employment DiscriminationArbitration WaiverCollective Bargaining AgreementNegligent HiringVicarious LiabilityAssault and BatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityRespondeat SuperiorScope of Employment
References
7
Case No. 14-12-01048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2013

Raymond L. Brooks v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Raymond L. Brooks appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Goodyear), which was based on Goodyear's exclusive-remedy affirmative defense under the Texas Labor Code. Brooks, an employee of Qualitech Maintenance, Inc. working at a Goodyear facility, sustained work-related injuries and received workers' compensation benefits from Qualitech's policy. He subsequently sued Goodyear for negligence, prompting Goodyear to argue it was his "statutory employer." Goodyear provided evidence that it had a written agreement to reimburse Qualitech for workers' compensation insurance premiums for Qualitech employees at Goodyear facilities, and it fulfilled this obligation. Citing HCBeck, Ltd., v. Rice, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Goodyear conclusively established its "statutory employer" status and entitlement to the exclusive-remedy defense.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DefenseStatutory EmployerSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeContractual ReimbursementNegligence ClaimAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityQualitech Maintenance
References
13
Case No. 15-25-00167-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Shannon Medical Center v. Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole

Radiologists Michael Sickels and James Christopher Cole sued Shannon Medical Center, alleging the hospital failed to properly monitor, report, and restrict their exposure to radiation while they treated patients, leading to injuries including cancer and amputations. Shannon Medical Center, a licensed health care provider, moved to dismiss these claims under Section 74.351 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, arguing that they constituted health care liability claims requiring a statutory expert report. Sickels and Cole denied their claims were health care liability claims, asserting they arose from violations of the Texas Radiation Control Act and Texas Administrative Code, that they were employees of Shannon Medical Center, and that they had satisfied the expert report requirement by providing voluminous medical records. The trial court denied Shannon Medical Center's motion to dismiss, prompting this appeal. Shannon Medical Center argues that the claims satisfy all elements of a health care liability claim, highlighting the substantial nexus to health care, the involvement of medical equipment, and the need for expert testimony. They also contend that Sickels and Cole are not employees of the hospital, but rather independent contractors employed by Shannon Clinic, and that the medical records provided do not meet Chapter 74's expert report requirements for standard of care, breach, and causation, nor was a curriculum vitae served. Shannon Medical Center seeks reversal of the trial court's denial, dismissal of the case with prejudice, and an award of statutory remedies.

Health Care Liability ClaimMedical MalpracticeExpert ReportRadiation ExposureHospital NegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 74Motion to DismissEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorRadiology
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ramirez v. Pecan Deluxe Candy Co.

Chief Justice Enoch concurs with the majority's result but dissents from their reasoning that Workers' Compensation Act claims and intentional tort claims are mutually exclusive, arguing against the applicability of the election of remedies doctrine. He asserts that intentional injuries are distinct from accidental injuries, citing established legal precedents and the historical interpretation of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act since 1913. Enoch further highlights that employees would not receive double recoveries due to the insurer's statutory subrogation rights, thus negating the need for an election of remedies. He concludes that Ramirez should be allowed to pursue his intentional tort claim without the election of remedies doctrine acting as a defense.

Workers' Compensation ActIntentional TortElection of Remedies DoctrineExclusive Remedy ProvisionAccidental InjuriesSubrogation RightsEmployer LiabilityCommon Law ActionTexas Workers' CompensationJudicial Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cameron Appraisal District v. Rourk

The Cameron Appraisal District assessed ad valorem taxes against the owners of 34 travel trailers. Some owners did not exhaust administrative remedies, while others did. The district court dismissed claims for those who failed to exhaust remedies, granted summary judgment against the others, and refused class certification. The court of appeals reversed these rulings. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision, holding that exhaustion of administrative remedies is mandatory and courts lack jurisdiction without it. The court also stated that a class action cannot bypass these statutory prerequisites for taxpayer recovery. However, the court agreed that fact issues prevent determining whether the remaining trailers are taxable as a matter of law, remanding that issue for further proceedings.

Ad Valorem TaxesProperty TaxAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineJurisdictionClass ActionTax CodeTravel TrailersManufactured HomesRecreational Vehicles
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slaughter v. Duck River Electric Membership Corp.

James Randall Slaughter, an employee of Osborne Electrical Contractors, Inc., suffered severe electrical shock injuries while working on lines for Duck River Electric Membership Corporation (DREMC). Slaughter filed a negligence lawsuit against DREMC, which claimed immunity as a statutory employer under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act. The trial court initially denied, but later granted, summary judgment for DREMC and Osborne, finding DREMC was a statutory employer. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that DREMC's right to control Osborne's work and the nature of the work performed made DREMC a statutory employer, thus barring Slaughter's common law tort action under the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimExclusive Remedy ProvisionRight to Control TestIndependent Contractor StatusThird-Party ComplaintElectrical AccidentPersonal Injury
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 6,055 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