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. 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

Bogus v. Manpower Temporary Services

Karen Bogus, a temporary employee of Manpower Temporary Services assigned to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), sustained injuries after slipping on ice in her workplace parking lot. She reported the incident to Mr. Mike Hill, a TVA supervisor who acted as her primary contact for Manpower. The trial court dismissed her workers' compensation claim, ruling that she failed to provide sufficient notice to her employer. The Supreme Court of Tennessee reversed this decision, finding that notice to Mr. Hill was adequate given his role, and that Manpower had actual notice of the injury within 30 days. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination on its merits.

Workers' CompensationNotice RequirementTemporary EmploymentLoaned Employee DoctrineGeneral and Special EmployersScope of EmploymentIcy ConditionsParking Lot AccidentAgencyRemand
References
5
Case No. W2001-01350-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2002

William Perry v. Ricki Perry

This case involves an appeal from a Chancery Court decision concerning the continuation of rehabilitative alimony and attorney's fees following a divorce. The trial court initially awarded temporary rehabilitative alimony to Ms. Perry and later extended it for three additional years, also ordering Mr. Perry to pay Ms. Perry's attorney's fees. Mr. Perry appealed, arguing that Ms. Perry failed to demonstrate a substantial and material change in circumstances required for modification. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that a showing of a substantial and material change in circumstances was not necessary for the modification of a temporary, open-ended alimony award. The appellate court also upheld the trial court's award of attorney's fees, finding no abuse of discretion.

DivorceAlimonyRehabilitative AlimonyAttorney's FeesSpousal SupportMarital DissolutionAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionTemporary AlimonyChange in Circumstances
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. Perry

The Tennessee Supreme Court addressed the standard for modifying a temporary, open-ended award of rehabilitative alimony. The Court held that a substantial and material change in circumstances must be demonstrated to extend or modify such an award, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court clarified that all rehabilitative alimony awards are inherently temporary and subject to modification under this standard. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination consistent with this new standard.

Alimony ModificationRehabilitative AlimonySpousal SupportChange in CircumstancesDivorce LawTennessee Supreme CourtAppellate Standard of ReviewFamily LawTemporary AlimonyRemand
References
7
Case No. 2015-07-0114
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

Miller, Torris v. TA Operating Corp.

Torris Miller, a diesel mechanic, sustained a back injury at work on November 3, 2014, while changing a tractor-trailer tire for TA Operating Corp. He filed a request for an expedited hearing seeking past medical and temporary disability benefits. The Court found that Mr. Miller provided sufficient notice of his work-related injury to the employer. Although TA Operating Corp. argued that Mr. Miller's termination for job abandonment precluded him from receiving ongoing temporary disability benefits, the Court disagreed, finding the termination improper. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. Miller temporary total disability and temporary partial disability benefits, but denied his request for payment of past medical expenses due to insufficient proof of the reasonableness of the charges.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryTemporary DisabilityJob AbandonmentMedical ExpensesNotice RequirementEmployer LiabilityTennessee LawExpedited HearingDisability Benefits
References
13
Case No. 13-99-136-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2001

Krishnan, Elizabeth, M.D. v. Ramirez, Senovio, Jr., Temporary Guardian of Property of Humberto Sepulveda, III, as Heir of Olga Ramirez Sepulveda

The Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a $250,000 jury award for mental anguish damages in a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Elizabeth G. Krishnan. The suit was brought by Senovio Ramirez, Jr., as temporary guardian for Humberto Sepulveda, III, the heir of Olga Ramirez Sepulveda, deceased, following the stillbirth of her child. Dr. Krishnan appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding causation and breach of the standard of care, the excessiveness of the damages, and various procedural issues including evidence admission, jury instructions, standing, and amendment of pleadings. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on causation and breach of standard of care, and upheld the award, concluding no reversible errors occurred during the trial.

Medical MalpracticeStillbirthMental Anguish DamagesCausationStandard of CareAppellate ProcedureJury InstructionsStandingPreeclampsiaObstetrics
References
61
Case No. 2015-01-0199
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2016

Tolbert, Christoper v. MPW Industrial Services at Volkswagen

This Expedited Hearing Order addresses Christopher Wade Tolbert's request for additional temporary disability benefits following a work-related injury to his head, neck, and back on June 29, 2015, while employed by MPW Industrial Services at Volkswagen. The central issues were Mr. Tolbert's entitlement to benefits and the correct weekly compensation rate. The Court found Mr. Tolbert was entitled to temporary total disability benefits from June 30, 2015, to July 9, 2015, and temporary partial disability benefits from July 10, 2015, to August 3, 2015, due to the employer's failure to provide accommodated work. Furthermore, he was awarded an additional $7.93 per week from August 4, 2015, to October 14, 2015, to correct an underpayment, and temporary partial disability benefits from November 11, 2015, onwards, based on ongoing medical restrictions from Dr. Stephen Dreskin. The Court established his correct weekly compensation rate as $261.28.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsExpedited HearingWage StatementCompensation RateMedical TreatmentModified DutyEmployer AccommodationPain ManagementNeck Injury
References
7
Case No. 2017-06-1778
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2018

Demotte, Julie v. UPS

Julie Demotte sustained a workplace injury involving a broken hip and leg in November 2016 while working for UPS. UPS initially accepted the claim and provided temporary disability benefits. Dr. Jason Evans, the authorized treating physician, placed Ms. Demotte at maximum medical improvement and assigned a three-percent whole-person impairment rating. A compensation hearing was held to determine Ms. Demotte's entitlement to permanent disability, temporary disability, and future medical benefits. The Court ordered UPS to provide lifetime medical benefits for Ms. Demotte's workplace injury, but denied her claims for both temporary and permanent disability benefits. The denial of permanent disability was based on the inadmissibility of Form C-30A as proof of impairment, as Ms. Demotte failed to present admissible evidence. Additionally, the claim for further temporary disability benefits was denied due to an earlier overpayment by UPS that exceeded any subsequent amounts due.

Workplace InjuryFuture Medical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsPermanent Disability BenefitsAdmissibility of Medical ReportsForm C-30AForm C-32Impairment RatingHearsayMaximum Medical Improvement
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,507 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