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

Hearst Newspapers, LLC v. Status Lounge Inc.

This case involves Status Lounge Incorporated suing media outlets, Hearst Newspapers, LLC and KHOU-TV, Inc., along with their reporters, for libel and business disparagement stemming from articles published about a shooting incident. The defendant media outlets filed a verified plea in abatement under the Defamation Mitigation Act (DMA), which automatically abated the lawsuit for sixty days. Following the abatement period, they moved to dismiss the claims under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), but the trial court denied these motions as untimely, adhering to the TCPA's strict sixty-day filing deadline post-service. On appeal, the central question was whether the DMA's abatement period tolls the TCPA's deadline for filing a motion to dismiss. The appellate court concluded that the DMA's abatement period does toll the TCPA's filing deadline, thereby making the defendants' motions timely, and consequently reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings on the merits.

DefamationLibelBusiness DisparagementTexas Citizens Participation ActDefamation Mitigation ActAbatementStatutory DeadlinesFirst Amendment RightsFree SpeechInterlocutory Appeal
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ExxonMobil Corp. v. Kirkendall

This opinion addresses Mobil's appeal from a trial court judgment in favor of Lonzo Kirkendall and Patricia Wagner, employees who claimed Mobil committed fraud regarding its workers' compensation insurance. The trial court found Mobil was not a subscriber under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA) and allowed common-law negligence claims. On rehearing, the appellate court determined Mobil proved its subscriber status as a matter of law, concluding that appellees' fraud claims were immaterial to this status. Therefore, the TWCA's exclusive remedy provision bars the common-law negligence claims. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for proceedings on alternate causes of action that were not tried previously.

Workers' CompensationSubscriber StatusFraudCommon-Law ClaimsInsurance PoliciesTexas Labor CodeExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewMotion for RehearingRetrospective Rating Plan
References
15
Case No. 09-06-566 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2008

Jerry C. McClelland v. Robert C. Gronwaldt

Jerry C. McClelland and numerous other plaintiffs sued Mobil Oil Corporation and several insurance companies, along with Robert C. Gronwaldt and Glenda Matous. They alleged Mobil fraudulently misrepresented its workers' compensation insurance status through a cash-flow retrospective plan with side agreements, thereby depriving employees of common-law causes of action for work-related injuries. The defendants filed motions for summary judgment, asserting Mobil was a workers' compensation subscriber. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that Mobil's side agreements with insurers did not invalidate its subscriber status under Texas law.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentFraudulent InducementSham Contract DoctrineSubscriber StatusTexas Insurance CodeBreach of ContractCivil ConspiracyCommon Law FraudEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Regalado v. H.E. Butt Grocery Co.

Juan Regalado, a temporary worker, was injured at an HEB warehouse. He sought common law and premise liability damages from HEB, alleging HEB's failure to report the injury waived Worker's Compensation Act protections and that HEB failed to provide notice of its subscriber status. Regalado also argued a fact question existed regarding who controlled his work – HEB or his temporary employer, Industrial Labor Services. The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of HEB, ruling that failure to report an injury does not waive Act protections, that HEB provided constructive notice of its subscriber status, and that HEB conclusively maintained control over Regalado’s work details, making him a 'borrowed servant.' However, the court reversed the trial court's decision regarding Regalado's affidavit of inability to pay cost bond, directing a refund.

Summary JudgmentWorker's Compensation ActWaiverCommon Law LiabilityNotice of CompensationSubscriber StatusBorrowed Servant DoctrineRight of ControlTemporary WorkerCost Bond
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Addison v. Diversified Healthcare/Dallas, L.L.C.

Willie Addison appealed the trial court's summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge lawsuit against Diversified Healthcare/Dallas, L.L.C. d/b/a Brookhaven Nursing Center. Addison claimed retaliatory discharge under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act after injuring his back at work and being terminated. Brookhaven, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance, successfully argued it was not subject to such claims. The court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that only subscribing employers are liable under Texas Labor Code § 451.001, and Brookhaven conclusively proved its non-subscriber status. The court also rejected Addison's argument to apply fair notice requirements of the express-negligence doctrine to this statutory claim.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation Non-SubscriberSummary Judgment AppealTexas Labor CodeEmployment LawEmployer LiabilityFair Notice DoctrineExpress NegligenceWrongful TerminationAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aguilar v. Wenglar Const. Co., Inc.

Jaime Aguilar sued Wenglar Construction Company for injuries sustained during a work-related accident. The trial court granted a take-nothing judgment, ruling Aguilar was a borrowed servant of Wenglar, thus limiting his remedy to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Aguilar appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence for both the borrowed servant status and the workers' compensation limitation. The appellate court affirmed Aguilar's status as a borrowed servant. However, it found Wenglar failed to prove it had provided proper notice of its workers' compensation coverage to the Industrial Accident Board, thereby preventing Wenglar from claiming subscriber status under the Act. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Borrowed Servant DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ActNotice RequirementsRight of ControlAffirmative DefenseEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryTexas LawAppellate ReviewReversal
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. Toys-R-Us Nytex, Inc.

Sherri Marshall, a temporary employee from Labor Systems, Inc., was injured at Toys-R-Us when boxes fell on her after being hit by a forklift. Marshall sued Toys-R-Us for negligence, assault and battery, and gross negligence. Toys-R-Us moved for summary judgment, asserting statutory immunity under the worker's compensation act, claiming Marshall was a "borrowed servant" and that Toys-R-Us was a subscriber. The trial court granted summary judgment, which Marshall appealed. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Toys-R-Us properly asserted immunity, Marshall was a borrowed servant of Toys-R-Us due to Toys-R-Us's control over her work, and Toys-R-Us was a worker's compensation subscriber as it paid premiums through Labor Systems. Additionally, the court found Marshall had constructive notice of Toys-R-Us's subscriber status.

Worker's CompensationSummary JudgmentStatutory ImmunityBorrowed Servant DoctrineNoticeEmployer LiabilityTemporary EmployeeNegligenceTexas LawPersonal Injury
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1973

In re Jones

This case concerns the foster care status of Marie Jones, born November 17, 1965, who was placed in foster care with the Commissioner of Social Services in 1968 and subsequently surrendered for adoption by her natural parents in 1969. Marie has lived continuously with her foster parents, Mabel and William Oliver, since 1968 and has developed deep emotional ties with their family. A hearing was held pursuant to Social Services Law section 392 to review her foster care status and determine her best interests. The maternal grandparents, who had regular visitation, initially sought increased visitation but later requested custody and opposed the adoption by the foster parents. The court, considering all testimony and circumstances, found it was in Marie's best interest to remain with her foster parents and ordered her placed for adoption in their home, while also allowing continued grandparent visitation.

Foster CareAdoptionChild CustodySocial Services LawBest Interest of the ChildGrandparents' RightsParental RightsDe Facto ParentFamily LawSurrender Instrument
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown Services, Inc. v. Fairbrother

The appellee was injured while working on a jack-up drilling barge in Trinidad's territorial waters. He sued his employer, Brown Services (appellant), Reading and Bates Drilling Co., and Amoco Trinidad Oil Co. The appellee settled with Reading and Amoco, and received funds from Brown Services' insurers. After a bench trial, the court found Brown Services 100% negligent and awarded damages. On appeal, Brown Services challenged the appellee's 'seaman' status, the applicability of general maritime law, and sought credit for previous settlements. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that Brown Services failed to prove it provided proper notice of workers' compensation coverage, thus it could not claim subscriber status under the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act as an exclusive remedy.

maritime lawJones Actnegligenceworkers' compensationaffirmative defensenotice provisionscommon lawsettlement creditemployer liabilityappellate review
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,782 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