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. 04-25-00361-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This memorandum opinion from the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirms a temporary injunction granted against John H. White, Jr. The dispute involves an easement across White's property, which provides access to Tuleta White's parcel, owned by TCW Helotes Ranch Ltd. White blocked the easement, prompting TCW Helotes Ranch to seek injunctive relief, citing the critical need for access due to Tuleta's medical condition and the care requirements for her animals. The appellate court concluded that an alternative easement over a third party's land did not constitute a bona fide alternative route, thereby upholding the trial court's finding of probable, imminent, and irreparable injury. Consequently, the temporary injunction, preventing White from obstructing the easement, was affirmed.

Easement disputeTemporary injunctionReal propertyLand accessIrreparable injuryAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewProperty rightsFamily disputeTexas law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1999

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

This action, brought under Section 301 of the LMRA, arises from the disbursement of settlement funds after a plant closing and a labor strike involving White Rose Food and Local No. 138. Plaintiffs, former employees, contended that an 'Amendment to Settlement Agreement' which deducted employer payroll taxes from a $1,500,000 settlement fund was entered into without required union membership ratification. The court found that Local 138's leadership acted in bad faith and arbitrarily by concealing this amendment and its financial impact from members, thereby breaching its duty of fair representation. Consequently, the court held the defendant White Rose liable due to its collusion with the union leadership in this concealment. Judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for the deducted amount plus prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees were also awarded.

Duty of Fair RepresentationUnion RatificationSettlement AgreementPayroll Tax DeductionsBreach of ContractConcealmentBad Faith ConductApparent AuthorityExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAttorneys' Fees
References
30
Case No. 22-0558
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2023

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

Dawn Thompson, a registered nurse, was terminated by Scott & White Memorial Hospital after reporting child abuse concerns to Child Protective Services (CPS). The hospital stated the termination was due to Thompson's third violation of their personal-conduct policy, specifically disclosing protected health information to a school nurse without authorization. Thompson sued, alleging retaliation in violation of Section 261.110(b) of the Texas Family Code, which protects professionals who report child abuse. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed that this statute requires a "but-for" causation standard, meaning the adverse action would not have occurred without the protected conduct. The Court found that Scott & White conclusively proved that Thompson would have been terminated for the HIPAA violation regardless of her CPS report, thereby negating the causation element of her claim. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and reinstated the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Scott & White.

Texas Family CodeWhistleblower ActEmployment TerminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentBut-For CausationHIPAA ViolationChild Abuse ReportProtected ConductNurse Employment
References
14
Case No. 01-12-00227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2014

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

Lani K. White and Charles White appealed a summary judgment in favor of DR & PA Deliverance, Ltd. (Deliverance). The Whites sued Deliverance alleging negligence after a gas leak from an uncapped line, installed by Deliverance's contractor Patrick Rusk, caused an explosion in their home. Deliverance contended it was not vicariously liable as Rusk was an independent contractor. The trial court granted summary judgment for Deliverance. On appeal, the Whites argued that Rusk's independent contractor agreement was modified by an agreement between Deliverance and MSS, and that extrinsic evidence showed Deliverance controlled Rusk's work. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the summary-judgment evidence failed to raise a fact issue regarding Rusk's independent contractor status, applying the Limestone factors to determine the nature of the employment relationship.

Summary JudgmentIndependent Contractor StatusVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNegligenceAppellate ReviewContract LawRight to Control TestMaster-Servant RelationshipTexas Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case concerns a dispute over a pension plan between White Motor Corporation and White Farm Equipment Company (White) and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Following an arbitration award favoring the UAW, White filed a petition in a New York court to vacate the award, while the UAW simultaneously initiated a suit in a Minnesota District Court to enforce it. The New York court, presided over by Judge Metzner, denied White's motion to stay the Minnesota proceedings. Conversely, it granted the UAW's cross-motion to stay the New York action, emphasizing that the UAW's Minnesota action was the proper forum and that White's claim constituted a compulsory counterclaim in the Minnesota suit, driven by interests of comity and orderly judicial administration.

Labor DisputeArbitration Award EnforcementCollective BargainingPension Plan DisputeLMRAFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictionVenue TransferStay of ProceedingsCompulsory Counterclaim
References
7
Case No. 03-10-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2011

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Robert Cook, an employee of a subcontractor (Keystone Structural Concrete, Ltd.), was injured while working on a construction project where White Construction Company was the general contractor. After receiving workers' compensation benefits, Cook sued White for negligence. White moved for summary judgment, asserting the exclusive-remedy defense, claiming it statutorily qualified as Cook's employer by providing his workers' compensation insurance through an Owner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP). Cook contended White did not 'provide' the insurance in the required sense. The trial court granted White's summary judgment motion. The appellate court affirmed, citing the *HCBeck, Ltd. v. Rice* case, finding that White was ultimately responsible for ensuring workers' compensation coverage for the subcontractor's employees, thus entitling it to the exclusive-remedy defense.

Workers' CompensationExclusive-remedy defenseSummary JudgmentGeneral ContractorSubcontractorOwner Controlled Insurance Program (OCIP)Employer LiabilityNegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas Labor Code
References
3
Case No. 533479
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

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

Jermaine White, an asbestos handler, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits for left shoulder, elbow, and wrist injuries sustained on December 12, 2018, when struck by debris. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) disallowed the claim, finding that White failed to provide timely notice of injury as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 18. White appealed, arguing that his employer had actual knowledge, but the Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision. The court noted White's inconsistent testimony and conflicting evidence regarding the accident and notice, deferring to the Board's credibility findings and its discretion not to excuse the lack of timely notice, especially given the employer's demonstrated prejudice from the delay.

Workers' Compensation Law § 18Notice of InjuryEmployer PrejudiceCredibility DeterminationAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation BoardAsbestos HandlerAccident ReportingClaim DisallowanceJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case concerns an appeal filed by Lois Dean Thedford against Jonelle M. White, challenging the trial court's decision to remove Thedford as guardian of Alma Louise Grove's person and appoint White in her place. Thedford failed to fulfill statutory requirements by not filing her guardianship oath and bond within the mandated timeframe, leading to her removal without notice under the Texas Probate Code. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing Thedford for failure to qualify or in denying her subsequent applications for reinstatement and a new trial. The court also found no due process violation, as the relevant probate statute allows removal without notice for neglecting to qualify as required by law. White's previously posted bond was deemed sufficient for her expanded guardianship duties.

GuardianshipProbate LawGuardian RemovalFiduciary DutyStatutory ComplianceAppellate ProcedureJudicial DiscretionDue ProcessBond RequirementsWard's Welfare
References
17
Case No. 2017-05-0944
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2018

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Carole White filed a Petition for Benefit Determination seeking medical and temporary disability benefits, alleging a mental injury stemming from a hostile work environment. The Court initially found it unlikely that Ms. White would prevail on her claim. Community Care subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which Ms. White did not effectively oppose with supporting evidence. The Court ruled that Ms. White failed to provide proof of an identifiable stressful, work-related event producing a sudden mental stimulus, relying instead on a claim of gradual employment stress, which is not compensable under relevant law. Consequently, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of Community Care, dismissing Ms. White's claim with prejudice.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentMental InjuryHostile Work EnvironmentCausationGradual StressProcedural HistoryBenefit DeterminationTennessee LawAppellate Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appealed a worker’s compensation judgment concerning Ira Gillis White, who sustained a back injury. A jury found White totally incapacitated for three months and permanently partially incapacitated thereafter, establishing his weekly earning capacity at $150 during the partial incapacity period. Electric Mutual contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of White’s pre-injury wages and that the jury’s finding on earning capacity was unsupported or against the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining that worker’s compensation aims to compensate for loss of earning capacity, not just actual wages, and that post-injury earnings do not conclusively prove capacity. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's assessment of White's diminished earning capacity, considering his pain and physical limitations despite continued employment.

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 503 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