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. 2-03-231-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Graham General Hospital v. Jacqueline A. Phillips

Graham General Hospital and Jacqueline A. Phillips filed an agreed motion asking the Court of Appeals to set aside the trial court's judgment as void. The parties argued that the trial court's judgment was void due to its failure to comply with Texas Labor Code section 410.258(a), which requires a proposed judgment in a workers' compensation proceeding to be filed with the executive director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission thirty days before entry. The appellate court agreed with the parties' contention. Therefore, the court set aside the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal. Costs of the appeal were ordered to be paid by Graham General Hospital.

Workers' CompensationVoid JudgmentTexas Labor CodeAppellate ProcedureAgreed MotionStatutory ComplianceJudgment Set AsideAppeal DismissedProcedural ErrorCourt of Appeals
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 1994

Chief Auto Parts, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance

Chief Auto Parts (Plaintiff) sued National Union Fire Insurance Company (Defendant) seeking reimbursement of additional premiums paid under retrospective workers' compensation insurance contracts. Chief argued that the contracts were unenforceable for retrospective rating due to National's failure to file required notices and endorsements with state insurance bureaus in Texas and California, as mandated by state regulations. The Court, presided over by District Judge Maloney, ruled that while the regulations carry the force of law, their plain meaning does not automatically void the retrospective rating provisions or entitle Chief to a refund. The Court emphasized that allowing Chief reimbursement would constitute a windfall, especially since Chief admitted intending to purchase the retrospective plan. Consequently, the Court granted National's motion for summary judgment and denied Chief's motion, affirming that Chief was not entitled to the reimbursement for additional premiums. This interlocutory judgment only addressed the claims related to the filing requirements.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ContractsRetrospective Rating PlanSummary JudgmentState RegulationsContract LawTexas LawCalifornia LawPremium ReimbursementFiling Requirements
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond Offshore Co. v. A&B BUILDERS, INC.

Diamond Offshore Company (Plaintiff) sued A&B Builders, Inc. (Defendant) for a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of a reciprocal indemnity provision and an additional-insured provision in their Master Service Contract. Lee McMillon, an A&B employee, sued Diamond after being injured on a Diamond rig. Diamond sought to enforce the contract's provisions against A&B. The Court found the Master Service Contract to be a maritime contract, governed by maritime law, thus invalidating A&B's arguments that state anti-indemnity laws or § 905(b) of the LHWCA applied to void the indemnity provision. The Court also determined that the additional-assured provision was an independent obligation. Consequently, the Court granted Diamond's motion for partial summary judgment and denied A&B's.

Maritime LawContractual IndemnitySummary JudgmentAdditional Insured ProvisionLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActDeclaratory Judgment ActionOffshore Oil and GasVessel RepairReciprocal Indemnity
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. Keyes 303, Inc.

Plaintiff Vernon Lewis, an employee of Completion Services, Inc. (CSI), sustained injuries on a drilling rig and sued Marine Drilling Company, Unocal Exploration Corporation, and Union Oil Company of California for negligence. Union Oil sought contractual indemnity from CSI based on a blanket services contract. CSI moved for summary judgment on this third-party claim, arguing the indemnity clause was void under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA). The Court determined that Unocal Exploration, which merged into Union Oil, was the vessel's charterer and therefore a 'vessel' under the LHWCA. The Court ruled that the indemnity agreement, as applied, allowed indirect indemnification of the vessel by an LHWCA employer, thus rendering it void under 33 U.S.C. § 905(b). Consequently, CSI's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing Union Oil's indemnity claim.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnityLHWCAOCSLAVessel NegligenceAdmiralty LawOffshore DrillingEmployer LiabilityThird-Party LitigationCorporate Succession
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yost v. Justin Belt Co.

This case involves consolidated appeals regarding a declaratory judgment and a temporary injunction. The appellants are Joe Yost, Roger E. Souder, and Tony Lama Company, Inc., while the appellees are Justin Belt Company, Inc., and H. J. Justin & Sons, Inc. The core dispute centers on the enforceability of a contract containing restrictive covenants, specifically agreements not to compete in the boot business and not to employ each other's personnel. The court found the non-compete clause to be an unreasonable restraint of trade and against public policy because it was not ancillary to a transfer of goodwill or an existing employment contract. Consequently, the court ruled that the illegality of this consideration vitiated the entire contract, rendering it unenforceable. While the contract itself was declared void, the court modified a temporary injunction, affirming restraints on Yost, Souder, and Tony Lama Company from soliciting or encouraging Justin employees to leave, but reversing the injunction that prevented Souder from engaging in the boot business. The judgment related to declaratory relief was reversed, and the contract was declared void.

Restrictive CovenantsNon-Compete AgreementTrade SecretsTemporary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentPublic PolicyIllegal ContractContract EnforcementSolicitation of EmployeesEquity
References
35
Case No. 03-08-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2010

Ronald R. Wagner v. Roberto D'Lorm and Edward P. Dancause

Appellant Ronald R. Wagner sued appellees Roberto D'Lorm and his attorney Edward P. Dancause in Travis County district court, seeking a declaration that a default judgment previously obtained against him in Zapata County was void due to the Zapata County court's lack of personal jurisdiction over Wagner. The Travis County trial court granted D'Lorm's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to declare another district court's judgment void, and denied Wagner's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, Wagner contended the trial court erred by not recognizing that a void judgment is subject to collateral attack in a court of equal jurisdiction. The appellate court held that a co-equal court indeed has subject-matter jurisdiction to declare a void judgment from another court to be void. It found Wagner's pleadings sufficient to invoke jurisdiction, reversed the trial court's dismissal order, and remanded the cause for further proceedings, without addressing the denial of summary judgment.

Collateral AttackVoid JudgmentSubject-Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionDefault JudgmentPlea to the JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureLack of Service
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hannah v. American Republic Insurance

Phil Hannah filed an action against American Republic Insurance Company (ARIC), alleging interference with his ERISA rights under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 due to employment termination, and wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Hannah’s employment with Americare, an ARIC subsidiary, was terminated in August 2004, after which he signed a Separation Agreement and Release. The Court granted ARIC’s motion for summary judgment on the ERISA § 510 claim, finding the Release valid and rejecting Hannah’s argument of economic duress. For the ERISA § 502 claim, the Court also ruled in favor of ARIC, determining that Hannah failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Plan, and found his futility and waiver arguments to be without merit. Consequently, the Court granted ARIC’s motion for entry of judgment on the benefits claim, denied Hannah’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the entire case with judgment entered in favor of the Defendant.

ERISASummary JudgmentEmployee Benefits PlanWrongful TerminationAdministrative RemediesEconomic DuressRelease AgreementWaiver of ClaimsFutility DoctrineDeferred Compensation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2004

Maraia v. Valentine

The plaintiffs appealed from an order vacating a prior award of summary judgment in their favor and from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, dismissing their complaint in an action for breach of contract. The defendant, an electrical contractor, was accused by Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, of operating a nonunion business and failing to comply with union bylaws regarding the timely filing of charges. The Supreme Court properly vacated the summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact concerning compliance with the union's constitution. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order as direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment, but affirmed the final judgment, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentJury VerdictUnion BylawsAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor DisputeDismissal of ComplaintTriable Issue of FactInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 17,221 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