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

Martinez v. Reich

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. 01-19-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Four J's Community Living Center, Inc. and Anthonia Uduma v. Patti J. Wagner, as Guardian of Jenny Ann Wagner, an Incapacitated Adult

The appellants, Four J's Community Living Center, Inc. and Anthonia Uduma, challenged a trial court's judgment in favor of Patti J. Wagner, as guardian of Jenny Ann Wagner. Jenny, an incapacitated adult, sustained severe burns and smoke inhalation in a fire at a residential care facility operated by Four J's and owned by Uduma. The jury found Four J's and Uduma negligent, awarding significant non-economic damages for past and future pain and disfigurement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding legally sufficient evidence of Uduma's negligence as the premises owner and factually sufficient evidence for the damages awarded. The court also rejected the application of a health care liability damages cap, stating that Four J's did not conclusively prove its status as a licensed health care provider.

NegligencePersonal InjuryResidential Care FacilityFire SafetyDamagesLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyPremises LiabilityHealth Care Liability ClaimTexas Medical Liability Act
References
33
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06161
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2022

Cotroneo v. Van Wagner Sign Erectors, LLC

Plaintiff Cosmo Cotroneo appealed an order granting defendants' motions for summary judgment dismissing a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, determining that the falling gang box lid was a routine workplace risk and not a material requiring hoisting or securing under the statute. However, the court modified the order to grant plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding that missing struts on the gang box constituted a liability as they were safety devices. The defendants' arguments regarding plaintiff's comparative negligence for damaging the struts were found to be speculative. Additionally, the court confirmed that the Van Wagner/Outfront defendants were proper Labor Law defendants, acting as general contractors and agents of the owner.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionGravity-Related RiskGang BoxSafety DevicesComparative NegligenceOwner's AgentGeneral Contractor
References
11
Case No. 01-15-00774-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2014

in Re Patti J. Wagner, as Guardian of Jenny Wagner, an Incapacitated Adult

This case is an original proceeding arising from a Petition for Writ of Mandamus concerning a trial court's order. The underlying litigation involves personal injury and wrongful death claims following a fire at a residential group home for mentally incapacitated adults. Key issues include the applicability of Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code (Medical Liability Act) to the defendants, which could impose damage caps, and the factual sufficiency of the jury's finding regarding the negligence of the resident who started the fire. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order.

Texas Court of AppealsMandamus ProceedingPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathPremises LiabilityGroup Home NegligenceFire AccidentMentally Disabled AdultsChapter 74 Medical Liability ActDamage Caps
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wagner v. HUGHES WOOD PRODUCTS, INC.

Mack Wagner appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of Hughes Wood Products, Inc. and Bailey Wagner in a personal injury suit. The appellate court first addressed the choice of law, determining that Texas law applied based on the 'most significant relationship' test and policy factors, despite the injury occurring in Louisiana. Consequently, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the basis of Louisiana law immunity. Second, the appellate court found that the defendants failed to establish employer status or their subscription to Texas workers' compensation insurance, therefore they could not invoke the exclusive remedy provision under Texas law. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentChoice of LawWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyTexas LawLouisiana LawAppellate ReviewEmployer StatusMost Significant Relationship Test
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesby v. Act Pipe & Supply, Inc.

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
Nov 09, 1978

Tolbert v. Wagner

This case involves an appeal in a negligence action for personal injuries and wrongful death following an automobile accident. The decedent, Eula Tolbert, a passenger, was injured while being driven by a co-employee, Walterine Wagner, in a car owned by Daniel Wagner, returning from an employer-sponsored outing. Both Eula Tolbert and Walterine Wagner received workmen's compensation benefits, leading defendants to successfully move for dismissal of the negligence complaint on the grounds of exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the dismissal, upholding that the workmen's compensation award constituted a conclusive finding that Tolbert was acting in the course of her employment, thereby barring the negligence action. Furthermore, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument to permit a derivative action against Daniel Wagner, reaffirming that workmen's compensation provides the full and exclusive remedy.

Negligence actionPersonal injuriesWrongful deathWorkmen's compensationExclusive remedyCo-employeesAutomobile accidentDismissal of complaintAppellate reviewDerivative action
References
2
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

Wagner v. Wody

The plaintiff, Russell Wagner, a sanitation worker, was injured by a shard of glass while collecting garbage from the defendants' home. He sued Janice and Jerry Wody for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, ruling that the hazard was inherent to a sanitation worker's duties. Wagner appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that a small piece of glass constitutes ordinary garbage, and the associated hazard is inherent to the sanitation worker's job. A dissenting opinion, however, argued that the reasonableness of disposing of such glass and whether the hazard was "ordinary and obvious" should be a question for a jury, thereby raising a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentSanitation Worker InjuryInherent RiskHazardous WasteBroken GlassHomeowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewNegligenceDuty of Care
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hughes Wood Products, Inc. v. Wagner

Plaintiff Mack Wagner was injured while logging in Louisiana and filed a personal injury suit against Hughes Wood Products, Inc. and Bailey Wagner in Texas. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Louisiana's workers' compensation law provided exclusive remedy. The trial court granted summary judgment, but the court of appeals reversed, applying Texas law. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that while the appeals court erred in its conflict-of-laws analysis by not considering Restatement section 184, the defendants failed to prove they were immune under Louisiana workers' compensation law. Specifically, defendants did not establish employer status for both, nor that plaintiff could obtain a Louisiana award given the lack of injury report and formal claim within the statute of limitations. The case is remanded to the trial court to determine the applicable substantive law.

Choice of LawConflict of LawsSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyRestatement (Second) of Conflict of LawsLouisiana LawTexas LawPersonal InjuryEmployer ImmunityJudicial Admissions
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 6,778 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