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. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
Case No. 14-09-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Weingarten Realty Management Company and Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal from a trial court's summary judgment in an insurance-coverage dispute. Appellants Weingarten Realty Management Company and Scottsdale Insurance Company sought to compel appellee Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company to defend Weingarten Management in an underlying lawsuit where it was mistakenly identified as a lessor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, allowing the consideration of extrinsic evidence as a narrow exception to the eight-corners rule. This exception applies when an insurer proves, using extrinsic evidence, that the party seeking defense is a stranger to the policy and could not be entitled to coverage under any circumstances, without touching on the merits of the underlying claim. The court concluded that Weingarten Management was not an actual lessor and therefore not an insured under Liberty Mutual's policy.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendEight-Corners Rule ExceptionExtrinsic EvidenceSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Policy InterpretationLessor StatusContractual DisputesTexas Civil Procedure
References
30
Case No. CA 12-01329
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2013

MULLIN, CARL D. v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, LLC

Carl D. Mullin, an employee of Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., sustained injuries after falling from a ladder at a Waste Management of New York, LLC facility. Mullin initiated an action against Waste Management, which subsequently filed a third-party claim against Riccelli for breach of contract. Waste Management alleged that Riccelli failed to name it as an additional insured on various required insurance policies, including workers' compensation, commercial general liability, and automobile liability. The Supreme Court granted Waste Management's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order, also upholding the denial of Riccelli's motion to introduce new evidence, deeming it untimely and unlikely to alter the determination.

Breach of ContractInsurance CoverageAdditional Insured ClauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmationThird-Party LitigationPersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentLadder FallContractual Indemnity
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cox v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF TEXAS, INC.

Appellant Eric Cox sued his employer, Waste Management of Texas, Inc., and his supervisor, Tony Wadley, for sexual harassment, retaliation, assault, and negligent retention or supervision. Cox alleged Wadley engaged in unwelcome romantic and sexual overtures, creating a hostile work environment. Waste Management conducted an investigation, suspended Wadley, and offered Cox alternative work arrangements, which Cox considered insufficient, leading to his resignation. The trial court granted summary judgment for both defendants. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no tangible employment action for quid pro quo harassment, that Waste Management took prompt remedial action for the hostile work environment claim, no adverse employment action for retaliation, no evidence for assault, and that negligent retention/supervision claims were barred by workers' compensation.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentNegligent SupervisionNegligent RetentionEmployment DiscriminationTexas Labor LawAppellate Court Decision
References
55
Case No. 14-08-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2008

in Re TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., TCW Asset Management Company, and Trust Company of the West

This case involves a petition for writ of mandamus filed by TCW Global Project Fund II, Ltd., TCW Asset Management Company, and Trust Company of the West (Relators) against British American Offshore Limited (BAOL). Relators sought to compel the district court judge to vacate an order denying their motion to dismiss, which was based on a forum-selection clause. The underlying dispute involved BAOL's tort claims against Relators, who were not signatories to the original rig contracts but sought to enforce the clause. The appellate court denied the petition, ruling that the Relators had waived their argument regarding the scope of the forum-selection clause by failing to adequately present it in their initial petition.

MandamusForum Selection ClauseWaiverAppellate ProcedureTexas LawTort ClaimsMotion to DismissReal Party in InterestContract DisputeJurisdiction
References
19
Case No. 14-17-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Robert Stevenson v. Waste Management of Texas, Inc. and Rigoberto Zelaya

In this personal-injury case, a worker, Robert Stevenson, hired by a temporary-employment supplier suffered serious injuries while performing tasks for Waste Management of Texas, Inc. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Stevenson’s negligence claim, citing the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision, asserting Stevenson was an employee of Waste Management. Stevenson appealed, arguing a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding his employment status. The appellate court found that the summary-judgment evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Stevenson was Waste Management’s “employee” under the statute. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Employment LawSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorNegligencePersonal InjuryTemporary EmploymentRight to ControlAppellate ReviewTexas LawMaster Agreement
References
17
Case No. 2-08-446-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2009

Eric Cox v. Waste Management of Texas, Inc. and Tony Wadley

Eric Cox appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Waste Management of Texas, Inc. and his supervisor, Tony Wadley. Cox had sued alleging sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligent retention or supervision. The court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Cox did not suffer a tangible employment action for quid pro quo harassment, Waste Management took prompt remedial action for the hostile work environment claim, and no adverse employment action occurred for the retaliation claim. The court also dismissed the assault and negligent retention/supervision claims, and noted the IIED claim against Wadley was not properly pleaded.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo HarassmentRetaliation ClaimConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseLabor CodeTexas Court of AppealsEmployment Discrimination
References
56
Case No. 19-0282
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2021

Waste Management of Texas, Inc. and Rigoberto Zelaya v. Robert Stevenson

Justice Boyd issues a concurring opinion, agreeing with the Court's judgment that Robert Stevenson was an employee of Waste Management of Texas, Inc. under the Workers' Compensation Act, but disagrees with the Court's reasoning. He argues that the Court errs by creating a new test for employee status in workers' compensation cases, diverging from the well-established 'right-to-control' test applicable to both workers' compensation and vicarious liability. Boyd emphasizes that an express contract denying the right to control can be overcome by conclusive evidence of actual control if it demonstrates the contract was a sham or implicitly modified. He concludes that the summary-judgment record in this case compellingly shows Waste Management's persistent and comprehensive control over Stevenson's work, thus establishing an employer-employee relationship.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorRight to ControlDual EmploymentContractual InterpretationTexas Supreme CourtConcurring OpinionVicarious LiabilityStaffing Agency
References
23
Case No. ADJ15681350; ADJ14443327
Regular
Mar 24, 2025

JOHNNY RAGASA vs. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, INC.; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Johnny Ragasa, employed as a mechanic by Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc., sustained industrial injuries to his bilateral knees. A Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) issued Findings and Award, prompting Defendant Ace American Insurance to file a Petition for Reconsideration, alleging the QME's report was not substantial medical evidence. The Appeals Board granted the Petition for Reconsideration but deferred a final decision, opting for further review of the merits and the complete record.

Petition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)substantial medical evidencebilateral kneestemporary total disabilitycumulative traumaarising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE)workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ)Employment Development Department (EDD)section 5909
References
25
Case No. 04-24-00606-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2025

Michael Shalit D/B/A Kimberly Investment Company, Lynzara-Austin Real Estate Management, LLC, as General Partner of Kendall County Development Company, L.P., and as General Partner of Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Robyn Real Estate Investments, L.P., Robyn Utility Investments, L.P., and Robyn Utility Investments Management, LLC v. Tapatio Springs Real Estate Holdings, L.P., Kendall County Development Company, L.P., Kendall County Utility Company, Inc., Tapatio Springs Utility Holdings, L.P., and Tapatio Springs Hospitality Holdings, L.P.

This memorandum opinion addresses an appeal from a summary judgment granted by the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas. Appellants, collectively known as the Shalit Entities, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Appellees, the Tapatio Entities, which barred the Shalit Entities' counter-claims due to the four-year statute of limitations. The Shalit Entities' claims, including fraud, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel, arose from a soured business partnership. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the Shalit Entities failed to sufficiently plead acknowledgment of debt to defeat the limitations defense. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that special exceptions were a prerequisite to summary judgment on limitations grounds and affirmed the severance of claims.

Statute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyBreach of ContractStatutory FraudDeclaratory ReliefBusiness Partnership DisputeReal Estate VentureAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 14,176 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