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. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Timmy Dale Britt v. Dyer's Employment Agency, Inc.

Timmy Dale Britt, a temporary employee of Dyer's Employment Agency, sustained a work-related injury resulting in carpal tunnel syndrome. Following his injury and the termination of his temporary assignment at Mark IV, Dyer's did not return him to work. The trial court initially applied a lower statutory multiplier to his permanent partial disability benefits, reasoning that Dyer's could not be faulted for the temporary assignment ending. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court vacated this decision, ruling that the higher multiplier should apply. This was based on the fact that Dyer's neither returned Mr. Britt to employment at an equal or greater wage, nor was he terminated for misconduct, making the 'meaningful return to work' concept inapplicable. The case was remanded to the trial court to redetermine the appropriate disability benefits using the greater multiplier.

Workers' CompensationTemporary EmploymentStatutory MultiplierPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical ImpairmentCarpal Tunnel SyndromeEmployer ResponsibilityReturn to Work PolicyRemandTennessee Supreme Court
References
16
Case No. 05-0558
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2007

Reliance National Indemnity Company, L&T, J v. and Lamar Construction, Inc. v. Advance'd Temporaries, Inc.

This case addresses whether a temporary employment agency, Advance’d Temporaries, Inc., 'furnishes labor' under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code, thereby qualifying for a mechanic's lien. The dispute arose from Advance’d supplying workers to a subcontractor, Gonzalez Construction, for a project overseen by general contractor Lamar Construction, Inc. After Gonzalez failed to pay Advance’d, Advance’d claimed a mechanic's lien, which the trial court denied but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals, holding that Advance’d did furnish labor because it acted as the employer of the temporary workers, responsible for their hiring, payment, and insurance, despite not controlling their daily work. The Court rejected the application of the borrowed-employee doctrine in this contractual context, affirming Advance'd's entitlement to a mechanic's lien.

Mechanic's LienTemporary EmploymentLabor LawConstruction ContractsEmployer StatusTexas Property CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySubcontractor Payment
References
6
Case No. 13-01-821-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2004

Advance'd Temporaries, Inc. v. Reliance Surety Company, Corpus Christi Crosswinds Apartments, Ltd., Cesar Gonzalez, Individually and D/B/A Gonzalez Construction

This is a mechanic's lien case from the Thirteenth District of Texas, Court of Appeals. Advance'd Temporaries, Inc., a temporary employment agency, appealed a trial court's decision that denied its standing to assert lien rights under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code. Advance'd had provided temporary laborers to Gonzalez Construction for an apartment construction project but was left with a significant unpaid balance when Gonzalez defaulted. The appellate court reviewed whether Advance'd, by 'furnishing labor,' qualified for mechanic's lien protection. Reversing the trial court, the court held that Chapter 53 protects those who furnish labor in the direct prosecution of work, and Advance'd's involvement in recruiting, hiring, and insuring the workers established it as such. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Mechanic's LienTemporary Employment AgencyStandingTexas Property CodeFurnishing LaborSubcontractorPayment BondConstruction ProjectAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ADVANCE'D TEMPORARIES, INC. v. Reliance Surety Co.

Advanced Temporaries, Inc., a temporary employment agency, challenged the trial court's conclusion that it lacked standing to assert mechanic's lien rights under Chapter 53 of the Texas Property Code. Advanced had provided temporary construction workers to Cesar Gonzalez, a subcontractor on the Corpus Christi Crosswinds Apartments project. Advanced recruited, hired, paid, and provided benefits for these workers, who were its own employees. After Gonzalez failed to pay an outstanding balance, Advanced filed suit and sought to recover against a payment bond. The appellate court, reviewing the definition of "labor" and "furnishing labor" under the Property Code, determined that Advanced's comprehensive role as an employer meant it did "furnish labor in direct prosecution of the work." Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that Advanced was entitled to the protections of the mechanic's lien statutes, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Mechanic's LienTemporary Employment AgencyConstruction LawTexas Property CodeFurnishing LaborSubcontractor LiabilityPayment BondAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationStanding
References
14
Case No. 2015-08-0651
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2016

Lee, Ferman v. American Employer Group

Ferman Lee, a truck driver for American Employer Group, sought medical and temporary disability benefits for an alleged work-related injury on October 12, 2015. He claimed the injury occurred while he was "on duty" and "staging himself" for a FedEx load in Memphis, Tennessee. The employer, American Employer Group, disputed the claim, arguing that Mr. Lee was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident, particularly as he was at a prohibited Pilot Truck Stop. The Court found Mr. Lee's actions unreasonable and outside the scope of his employment duties, noting he was not officially dispatched and was at an unauthorized location. Therefore, the Court denied his request for benefits, concluding he did not meet the burden of proving compensability.

Expedited HearingEmployment Scope DisputeTruck Driver InjuryTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Benefits DenialEmployer Policy ViolationUnauthorized Vehicle UseOn-Call Status DisputeDispatch ProtocolTruck Stop Accident
References
2
Case No. 13-22-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2024

Audrey Nickerson v. Unique Employment I Ltd.

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Unique Employment I, Ltd., a temporary-staffing agency, after sustaining injuries from a John Deere tractor operated by a worker hired through Unique. Nickerson appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Unique. The appellate court reviewed Unique's combined no-evidence and traditional summary judgment motions, affirming that an adequate time for discovery had passed and that Unique's motion adequately challenged Nickerson's various negligence and liability claims. The court clarified that Texas Labor Code Ann. § 417.001 provides a statutory remedy but does not create a standalone cause of action. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryAppellate CourtTexas LawSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimsVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorDiscovery IssuesStatutory Interpretation
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1997

In re the Claim of Mustaqur Rahman

The claimant, employed by a temporary agency for six months, resigned alleging co-worker harassment. He admitted not discussing his concerns with the employer prior to resigning. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found he voluntarily left his employment without good cause, noting that continuing work and reassignment options were available had he informed the employer. The Board's decision was affirmed on appeal, reinforcing that co-worker conflicts do not constitute good cause for leaving employment, especially when the employer is not notified beforehand.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary ResignationGood CauseHarassmentEmployer NotificationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCo-worker ConflictDisqualificationEmployment Benefits
References
2
Case No. Docket No. 2016-07-0889, State File No. 57742-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2017

Kelly, Shameeka v. Regency Retirement Villiage

Shameeka Kelly, an employee of Regency Retirement Village, filed a request for an Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits for an alleged injury to her left shoulder, low back, and neck sustained on July 26, 2016. Regency contended that the medical evidence did not establish the injury arose out of her employment and that she refused a light-duty position. The Court found that Ms. Kelly failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that her injury arose primarily out of her employment. Consequently, the Court denied her requests for further medical and temporary disability benefits, scheduling a Scheduling (Status) Hearing for October 26, 2017.

Workers Compensation ClaimExpedited HearingMedical Benefits DenialTemporary Disability BenefitsCausationPre-existing ConditionsLight Duty OfferNurse Practitioner TestimonyOrthopedic EvaluationHerniated Disc
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banner Employment Agency, Inc. v. O'Connell

This case concerns the annulment of a respondent's determination that a petitioner employment agency violated Section 185 of the General Business Law by charging an excessive fee. The dispute centered on the classification of an employee for fee calculation, with the respondent advocating for 'Class A1' and the petitioner for 'Class B'. The employee possessed an engineering background and technical experience. The court concluded that the employment did not fit into 'Class A1' or the professional aspect of 'Class B', instead falling under 'Class B's' residual 'other employment' category. Consequently, the respondent's initial determination was annulled.

Employment Agency FeesGeneral Business LawEmployment ClassificationStatutory InterpretationExcessive ChargeJudicial ReviewAnnulmentSkilled WorkerNon-Professional EmploymentClass B Employment
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 17,931 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