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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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. DC-15-604
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2015

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

BFI Waste Services of Texas, LP d/b/a Allied Waste Services of Rio Grande Valley (Plaintiff) sued the City of Rio Grande, Texas and its elected officials (Defendants) after the City attempted to prematurely terminate its exclusive solid waste collection contract with Allied Waste and entered into an agreement with Grande Garbage Collection Co. (Intervenor/Plaintiff). Allied Waste sought a temporary injunction, arguing that the City's actions constituted a breach of contract and violated various constitutional rights, including the Contract Clause and Due Process. The District Court, presided over by Judge Migdalia Lopez, conditionally granted Allied Waste's request for a temporary injunction on November 10, 2015, restraining the City from interfering with Allied Waste's exclusive contractual rights. The defendants, including Grande Garbage Collection Co., are appealing this temporary injunction.

Contract DisputeExclusive FranchiseWaste ManagementMunicipal LawTexas LawConstitutional RightsDue ProcessInterlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionBreach of Contract
References
31
Case No. CA 12-01329
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2013

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

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

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

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. 14-17-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

In this tax protest suit, USA Waste Services of Houston, Inc. appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas. USA sought a sales tax refund under the sale-for-resale exemption for steam cleaning services it purchased after spilling waste on customers’ property. The district court granted the Comptroller’s motion for summary judgment and denied USA’s motion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that USA failed to demonstrate that the steam cleaning was an integral part of its waste removal service, as it was ordered only after customer complaints and not as an essential, re-billed service or an integral part of their existing contracts.

Sales TaxTax ExemptionSale-for-ResaleStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentWaste RemovalSteam Cleaning ServicesAppellate ReviewTexas Tax CodeComptroller of Public Accounts
References
45
Case No. 03-03-00515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2004

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

USA Waste Services of Houston, Inc. (USA) appealed a summary judgment ruling in a tax protest suit. USA sought a sales tax refund for steam cleaning services it purchased after spilling waste on customer properties, claiming eligibility under the sale-for-resale exemption. The Comptroller argued these services were not essential to USA's primary waste removal service. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that USA failed to prove the steam cleaning was an integral part of its service, thus denying the refund claim.

Tax ProtestSales TaxSale for Resale ExemptionSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAdministrative LawWaste Removal ServicesTravis CountyTexas Court of AppealsComptroller of Public Accounts
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 1999

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

This case involves two related actions arising from inter-municipal agreements for waste disposal services. The defendants appealed from initial court orders concerning their obligations to pay minimum waste commitment tonnage fees and their entitlement to various credits, including those for private carters, recyclable materials, and yard waste. The plaintiffs cross-appealed regarding the methodology for calculating yard waste credits and the fees for using the Town's transfer facility. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, issued an initial order and a subsequent amended order upon reargument, clarifying several points. The Appellate Division affirmed the amended order, holding that the agreements unambiguously required villages to pay minimum tonnage fees regardless of actual waste delivered. The court also determined that the villages were only obligated to pay transfer facility fees based on actual waste delivered and that any ambiguities regarding yard waste credits should be interpreted against the Town as the drafter of the agreements.

Inter-municipal agreementsWaste disposalSummary judgmentContract interpretationMinimum commitment feesYard waste creditTransfer facility feesUnambiguous agreementsExtrinsic evidenceAmbiguity construction
References
10
Case No. 2-08-446-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2009

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

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

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

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
Showing 1-10 of 264 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