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

Texas Workforce Commission v. Olivas

Ms. Maria Elena Olivas, a former employee of the Texas Workforce Commission, filed a workers' compensation claim after developing injuries in March 2008. She was subsequently dismissed from employment in May 2009, leading her to file a suit against the Commission for retaliatory discharge. The Commission filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting sovereign immunity and arguing that Section 311.034 of the Texas Government Code mandated an unequivocal waiver of immunity, which it claimed was absent in the anti-retaliation provisions of Chapter 451. The trial court denied the Commission's plea. On appeal, the Commission contended that Section 311.034 abrogated existing Texas Supreme Court precedent (*Kerrville State Hosp. v. Fernandez*) that recognized a waiver of sovereign immunity for such claims against state agencies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, holding that the State Applications Act (SAA) still provides a clear and unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity for retaliation claims against state agencies, and that neither Section 311.034 nor the *Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman* decision altered this established legal analysis.

Sovereign ImmunityRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewGovernment CodeLabor CodeLegislative WaiverState AgenciesStatutory Construction
References
4
Case No. NO. 2-09-151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2009

Victor McKoy v. City of Fort Worth, Texas

This Texas Workers' Compensation Act case addresses the applicability of waiver provisions for contested injury claims. Appellant Victor McKoy, a City employee, suffered a knee injury, which the City of Fort Worth initially accepted as compensable. Subsequent medical evaluations revealed additional knee conditions (Baker’s cyst, chondromalacia, and bursitis) which the City contested. The core dispute was whether the City's failure to contest these new diagnoses within the initial 60-day period, as per Labor Code section 409.021(c), constituted a waiver of its right to contest compensability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that the waiver provision did not apply to disputes regarding the extent of an injury once compensability was accepted. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Lawton, which clarified that a 45-day deadline applies to disputes concerning the extent of an injury, not the 60-day compensability waiver.

Workers' Compensation ActWaiver ProvisionCompensability DisputeExtent of InjurySummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeAdministrative CodeKnee InjuryBaker's CystBursitis
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2008

H & M Hennes & Mauritz LP v. Skanska USA Building, Inc.

Plaintiff H & M Hennes & Mauritz LP (H&M) commenced a subrogation action against defendants Skanska USA Building, Inc. (Skanska) and Seasons Contracting Corp. (Seasons) for property damage allegedly caused by construction work performed under a contract with H&M’s landlord. Skanska moved for summary judgment, arguing that H&M’s lease agreement included a waiver of subrogation provision that precluded the claims. H&M contended the provision was ambiguous as to its scope and unenforceable due to lack of mutuality under New York law. The Court granted Skanska’s motion, finding that the waiver provision clearly applied to independent contractors like Skanska and was enforceable, thereby dismissing all claims against Skanska.

SubrogationWaiver of SubrogationSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationLease AgreementIndependent ContractorsLandlord-Tenant RelationshipNew York LawProperty DamageInsurance Policy
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haley v. University of Tennessee-Knoxville

Usha Haley, an Associate Professor at the University of Tennessee, was denied tenure and subsequently filed several lawsuits, including a breach of contract claim with the Tennessee Claims Commission, which she later withdrew. The University argued that filing with the Claims Commission activated a waiver provision, barring her other related federal and state causes of action. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee certified a question to the Tennessee Supreme Court regarding this waiver. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that a voluntary non-suit of a claim filed with the Claims Commission still activates the waiver provision of Tennessee Code Annotated section 9-8-307(b). The Court also affirmed that Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 23, which authorizes the certified question procedure, is a constitutional exercise of its inherent power.

Certified questionWaiver provisionTennessee Claims Commission ActSovereign immunityJudicial powerState lawFederal courtsStatutory interpretationVoluntary dismissalSupreme Court Rule 23
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1990

Trump Village Section 3, Inc. v. Sinrod

The case involves a dissenting opinion regarding a landlord-tenant dispute over an anti-pet provision in a cooperative building. Judge Friedmann dissents, arguing that the defendants, the Sinrods, openly and notoriously harbored their dog, Coco, for seven months, thereby leading the plaintiff cooperative to waive its anti-pet policy under New York City's "Pet Law." Despite the plaintiff's claim of late awareness, the judge found the evidence of frequent public dog walking compelling. The dissent concludes that ruling against the defendants would impose an unreasonable burden on tenants and defeat the purpose of the Pet Law, especially since no nuisance was cited. Therefore, the judge advocates for reversing the prior order and dismissing the complaint.

Pet LawWaiverNo-Pet PolicyOpen and Notorious HarboringCooperative HousingApartment RegulationsNew York City Administrative CodeHousing DisputeTenant RightsLandlord-Tenant Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laniok v. Advisory Committee of the Brainerd Manufacturing Co. Pension Plan

Plaintiff Peter Laniok sued his former employer, Brainerd Manufacturing Company, under ERISA for denying him pension benefits. Laniok argued the waiver he signed, which foreclosed his participation in the company's pension plan due to his age, was void against public policy and violated ERISA's age discrimination provisions and the ADEA. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the waiver was valid. The court determined that ERISA does not prohibit an employee from knowingly and voluntarily waiving pension rights and found no violation of ERISA's age discrimination provision or ADEA. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Brainerd Manufacturing Company.

ERISAPension BenefitsWaiverAge DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentEmployee RightsRetirement PlanDefined Benefit PlanPublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whitehead v. American Industrial Transportation, Inc.

Joseph Vickers, Jr., a minor, was killed in a job-related accident while employed by American Industrial Transportation, Inc. (AIT), an employer covered by the Workers’ Compensation Act. His mother, Mrs. Rose Whitehead, filed a wrongful death suit against AIT, alleging gross negligence. The district court granted summary judgment for AIT, asserting the suit was barred by workers’ compensation statutes because Joseph had not provided the required notice to preserve his right to a negligence action. Mrs. Whitehead contended that the waiver provision of the Act should not apply to minors or that it was unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the waiver provision applies to minors and that Mrs. Whitehead failed to demonstrate it was unconstitutional as applied to her son.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathMinor EmployeeGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessOpen CourtsWaiver ProvisionStatutory Interpretation
References
14
Case No. 13-01-778-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2002

Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority v. Paul J. Pitonyak, Jr.

This case is an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction. The appellant, Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA), argued that the trial court erred because the appellees, Paul J. Pitonyak, Jr., et al., failed to allege claims falling under the waiver provisions of the Texas Tort Claims Act. Pitonyak and Carl Holcomb drowned in Goff Bayou, which GBRA oversees, leading to the lawsuit. The appellate court examined the applicability of premise defects, special defects, the recreational use statute, and the discretionary-function exemption. The court concluded that the appellees' petition did not state a claim within the waiver provisions of the Texas Tort Claims Act, reversing the trial court's decision and remanding the case for further proceedings to allow for potential amendment of the pleadings.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityPremise LiabilitySpecial DefectRecreational Use StatuteWater LawNegligenceGross NegligenceInterlocutory Appeal
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mu Chapter of the Sigma Pi Fraternity of the United States, Inc. v. Northeast Construction Services, Inc.

Mu Chapter of the Sigma Pi Fraternity (Mu) hired Northeast Construction Services (NE) for renovations, but the building was destroyed by fire, allegedly due to NE's negligence. Mu's insurer, CNA, as subrogee, sued NE for the $670,000 paid out, and Mu also sued NE for replacement and consequential damages. The construction contract between Mu and NE included a provision requiring Mu to obtain property insurance covering all parties and a mutual waiver of claims to the extent of such insurance. Mu failed to fully comply with this provision, relying on an existing policy without proper notice to NE. The court upheld the contract's 'wrap-up' insurance concept and the waiver of claims, concluding that Mu and CNA's claims against NE were barred. Consequently, NE's motions to dismiss the complaints were granted.

Construction LawProperty InsuranceWaiver of SubrogationContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityFire DamageBreach of ContractSubrogationAIA ContractGeneral Conditions
References
5
Case No. 13-22-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 04, 2024

The City of Corpus Christi, Texas v. Audrey Nickerson

The City of Corpus Christi, Texas, appealed the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a negligence suit filed by its employee, Audrey Nickerson. Nickerson sustained an injury from a coworker operating motor-driven equipment during the course of their employment. The City argued that Nickerson's claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA), which it asserted waived the City's immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA). The appellate court concluded that the TWCA's exclusive remedy provision indeed applied, barring the waiver of immunity under the TTCA because Nickerson received worker's compensation benefits. The court also rejected Nickerson's alternative argument for a waiver under Political Subdivision Law. Consequently, the trial court's order was reversed, and Nickerson's claims were dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Texas Workers Compensation ActTexas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityExclusive RemedyPlea to JurisdictionNegligenceMotor-Driven EquipmentEmployment LawAppellate Court
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,825 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