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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Glenn Wesby was injured while working on Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.'s premises, employed by Labor Express Temporary Services. He sued Act Pipe for negligence. Act Pipe sought summary judgment, arguing that Wesby's claims were barred by Texas Workers’ Compensation statutes under either the Staff Leasing Services Act or the borrowed servant doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Wesby was Act Pipe’s borrowed servant and Act Pipe's workers’ compensation insurance applied, thus barring his common law claims, irrespective of whether notice of coverage was provided.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentBorrowed Servant DoctrineStaff Leasing Services ActWorkers' Comp ExclusivityTemporary EmploymentNegligence ClaimsAppellate AffirmationEmployer Affirmative DefenseTexas Labor Law
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2010

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Alicia Briggs, a pro se plaintiff, sued Women in Need, Inc. (WIN) for alleged violations of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, claiming unlawful termination due to her pregnancy and related medical conditions. Briggs went on medical leave for a high-risk pregnancy, gave birth via C-section, and was later informed she was terminated after requesting a specific shift upon her return. WIN moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Briggs refused her assigned schedule. The Court denied WIN's motion, finding Briggs had plausibly alleged a prima facie case of discrimination, citing the close temporal proximity between her pregnancy and termination, and her qualifications for the role. The matter was recommitted to the assigned magistrate judge for supervision of discovery and pre-trial matters.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIWrongful TerminationMotion to DismissPrima Facie CaseCivil Rights ActFederal Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewHigh-Risk Pregnancy
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This action was brought by employees of Volunteer Ordnance Works against their employer, operating under a government contract, seeking unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The dispute centered on whether time spent at plant gates and in transit on the employer's premises constituted compensable working time. The court found that while the Fair Labor Standards Act generally applied to government contracts and the plaintiffs were engaged in the production of goods for commerce, the specific time claimed was not part of a statutory workweek, particularly considering the wartime context and the benefit to the national war effort. Furthermore, the court determined that the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947 barred the plaintiffs' claims and affirmed the constitutionality of its provisions, including Section 9, which provides a defense for employers acting in good faith reliance on administrative interpretations. Consequently, judgment was awarded to the defendant.

Overtime CompensationFair Labor Standards ActPortal-to-Portal ActWartime ProductionGovernment ContractorsEmployee WagesStatutory WorkweekJurisdictionConstitutional LawDe Minimis Rule
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of a workers' compensation carrier. The appellant's husband died at work, and the carrier denied death benefits, leading the appellant to sue for benefits under the Workers' Compensation Act and for treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). While the appellant successfully recovered workers' compensation benefits, the trial court granted summary judgment on the DTPA claim, ruling that the decedent was not a "consumer" as defined by the Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the relationship between the decedent and the compensation carrier was statutory, not contractual, meaning there was no "purchase" of goods or services to establish consumer status under the DTPA. Therefore, the denial of workers' compensation liability alone did not give rise to a cause of action under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Workers' CompensationDeceptive Trade PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConsumer StatusInsurance LiabilityStatutory RelationshipContractual RelationshipDeath Benefits ClaimTreble DamagesAppellate Court Decision
References
2
Case No. 03-07-00725-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2009

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The City of San Antonio, through CPS Energy, sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Bastrop Central Appraisal District (BCAD) and its chief appraiser to act on an untimely application for an open-space agricultural appraisal for 1999-2002. CPS Energy's land, previously tax-exempt for public use, lost this status retroactively after BCAD discovered a lignite mining lease with Alcoa. Although BCAD processed a similar application for 2003, it took no action on the earlier untimely applications. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of mandamus, holding that BCAD had no statutory duty to act on applications filed after appraisal records approval and that CPS Energy's due-process rights were not violated, as they had opportunities to file timely applications. The court also rejected CPS Energy's estoppel argument against BCAD.

Property Tax LawAppellate ProcedureMandamus ActionStatutory InterpretationDue Process RightsTax Exemption RevocationOpen-Space Agricultural AppraisalUntimely ApplicationGovernmental EstoppelTexas Tax Code
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
Case No. 15-25-00022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2024

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The case involves a legal dispute over the State of Texas Comptroller's amendments to Rule 3.334, which governs local sales and use tax sourcing, especially for e-commerce and fulfillment centers. The applicant cities challenge several subsections of the rule, arguing they contravene existing statutes, prior interpretations, and the Administrative Procedure Act due to inadequate notice and reasoned justification. The Comptroller asserts the amendments clarify long-standing interpretations to address modern e-commerce practices, ensure uniform tax application, and prevent revenue manipulation, maintaining that the changes are within their statutory rulemaking authority. The trial court invalidated several contested subsections of Rule 3.334, permanently enjoining their enforcement and remanding them for further consideration. Both parties are appealing aspects of the trial court's decision, with the Comptroller cross-appealing the invalidity rulings. The issue is significant to Texas jurisprudence, determining where sales or use taxes are consummated for local allocation.

Sales Tax SourcingLocal Sales TaxE-commerceFulfillment CentersAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationTexas Tax CodeRule 3.334Tax Revenue AllocationJudicial Review of Agency Action
References
21
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01380 [180 AD3d 1101]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2020

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The plaintiff, a mechanic's assistant, sustained personal injuries after falling into an elevator shaft while attempting to close its doors, contrary to established safety procedures. He initiated a consolidated action against the building owner, Young Men's and Women's Hebrew Association, and a consulting firm, Sierra Consulting Group, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the defendants' separate motions for summary judgment, determining that the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries and that the defendants lacked supervisory authority or notice of the alleged dangerous condition. The plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability was denied. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concurring with its findings regarding the plaintiff's sole proximate cause and the defendants' lack of liability under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200.

Personal InjuryElevator AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawPremises LiabilitySole Proximate CauseSupervisory ControlDangerous ConditionConstruction AccidentFall from Height
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02509 [182 AD3d 944]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Women's Project and Productions, Inc. (WPP), a non-profit theater company, appealed two decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board found WPP liable for additional tax contributions on remuneration paid to certain individuals, including artistic advisors and directors, whom WPP had treated as independent contractors. The Department of Labor, however, considered these individuals employees. The Board modified an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that WPP failed to rebut the statutory presumption of employment under Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) (1-a). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, ruling that WPP's arguments were unpersuasive and that the Board rationally concluded WPP failed to rebut the statutory presumption of employment. Consequently, the additional tax contributions imposed upon WPP were upheld.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationPerforming ArtsStatutory PresumptionLabor LawTax ContributionsAppeal BoardRebuttalArtistic Services
References
5
Case No. 03-17-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 6,929 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