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. 06-15-00078-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2015

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves an appeal by Tochril Incorporated (also known as Health Force) against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC). Health Force challenged the TWC's administrative decision classifying its healthcare workers as "employees" rather than independent contractors, which led to the assessment of unemployment taxes. The appeal contests the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the TWC, arguing that the court improperly excluded evidence, failed to recognize genuine issues of material fact under the Twenty Factor Test, and ignored consistent findings from federal agencies like the IRS and DOL, which had classified the same workers as independent contractors. The core legal issue is the correct worker classification for unemployment tax purposes.

Worker ClassificationIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusUnemployment TaxTexas Workforce CommissionSummary Judgment AppealTwenty Factor TestIRS Audit FindingsDOL Audit FindingsLabor Law
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Douglas Spicer appealed the trial court's summary judgment upholding the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) denial of unemployment benefits. Spicer, a former pianist and organist for Pleasant Valley United Methodist Church, was denied benefits due to an exemption in the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act (TUCA) for church employment, leading him to challenge the statute's constitutionality. He argued that section 201.066 of the TUCA violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, specifically the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses. The appellate court, applying the Lemon test and rational-basis review, found no constitutional violations. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the TWC's decision to deny unemployment benefits to Spicer was supported by substantial evidence.

Unemployment BenefitsChurch ExemptionConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEstablishment ClauseFree Exercise ClauseEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentAdministrative Law
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This appeal examines whether an employee on federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave can simultaneously receive unemployment benefits under the Texas Labor Code. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) appealed a trial court's decision that denied unemployment benefits to Julia White, who was on unpaid FMLA leave from Wichita County for depression and anxiety. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that FMLA, intended for job security, and state unemployment benefits, meant for those able and seeking new work, are mutually exclusive. The court concluded that interpreting the statutes to allow concurrent benefits would be unreasonable, thwarting legislative intent as both laws serve distinct purposes.

Family and Medical Leave ActFMLAUnemployment BenefitsTexas Labor CodeJob SecurityIncome SecurityEmployment RelationshipMedical LeaveTexas Workforce CommissionWichita County
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2013

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

The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed lower court decisions regarding a workers' compensation settlement for Christopher Furlough. Furlough sought to set aside a Department of Labor-approved settlement with Spherion Atlantic Workforce, LLC, claiming inadequate representation and insubstantial benefits. The Supreme Court clarified that the Department's approval of a settlement implies approval of the accompanying SD-1 form, precluding judicial second-guessing of its completeness. The Court also ruled that administrative remedies were exhausted and Furlough was legally represented, making a court-approved settlement unnecessary. Crucially, Furlough's petition, filed nearly two years post-settlement, was deemed untimely under Rule 60.02(1), and relief under Rule 60.02(5) or inherent authority was inappropriate due to available remedies and Furlough's lack of complete fault.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement AgreementAdministrative RemediesRule 60.02Independent ActionEquitable ReliefMedical Impairment RatingPermanent Partial DisabilityDepartment of Labor ApprovalSD-1 Form
References
50
Case No. 08-10-00070-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 17, 2011

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Texas Workforce Commission appealed the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a retaliatory discharge suit brought by its former employee, Maria Elena Olivas. Olivas claimed she was dismissed after filing a workers’ compensation claim. The Commission argued that sovereign immunity for such claims had not been 'clearly and unambiguously' waived by the Legislature, referencing Texas Government Code Section 311.034 and the Travis Central Appraisal District v. Norman case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, distinguishing Norman by noting that the State Applications Act (SAA) had not been amended since the controlling Fernandez decision, which established a clear waiver of sovereign immunity for state agencies under the SAA. The court also clarified that Section 311.034 did not alter the existing framework for analyzing legislative intent regarding waivers of sovereign immunity.

Retaliatory DischargeSovereign ImmunityWorkers' CompensationPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationGovernment Code 311.034Labor Code 451.001State Applications ActJudicial Precedent
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2016

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case addresses whether members of the Harris County Appraisal Review Board (Board) are considered employees of the Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act (TUCA), making them eligible for unemployment benefits. The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) determined they were employees, a decision upheld by the court of appeals after being overturned by the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, finding substantial evidence to support the TWC's determination of an employment relationship between HCAD and the Board members. The Court also concluded that the Board members do not qualify for TUCA's exemption for members of the judiciary, as their functions, while quasi-judicial, do not place them within the judicial branch of government for employment purposes.

Unemployment CompensationEmployment RelationshipAppraisal Review BoardTexas Workforce CommissionHarris County Appraisal DistrictJudicial ExemptionQuasi-judicial FunctionsStatutory InterpretationControl TestSubstantial Evidence
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case addresses the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) award of unemployment benefits to former members of the Harris County Appraisal Review Board (Board members). The Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) challenged these awards, arguing that Board members were neither its employees nor eligible for benefits due to their 'judiciary' role. The trial court sided with HCAD, denying TWC's summary judgment motion and granting HCAD's. The appellate court found that Board members do not fall under the judiciary exception and that substantial evidence supported TWC's determination of an employer-employee relationship with HCAD. The court reversed the trial court's judgment, rendering a decision in TWC's favor and affirming the unemployment benefits awards.

unemployment benefitsappraisal review boardemployer-employee relationshipsubstantial evidencesummary judgmentadministrative lawjudicial reviewstatutory interpretationTexas Labor CodeTexas Tax Code
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Critical Health Connection, Inc. (CHC), a medical staffing company, filed suit against the Texas Workforce Commission (the "Commission") to seek a refund of unemployment compensation taxes. CHC contended that its medical service providers were independent contractors, not employees, and therefore it should not be liable for contributing to the compensation fund on their behalf. However, the Commission determined the providers were employees and charged CHC for past-due contributions, penalties, and interest, which CHC paid under protest. Following an administrative hearing and a subsequent suit, the trial court granted summary judgment for the Commission, finding CHC to be the employer. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that based on a multi-factor "right-to-control" test, the providers were employees and not independent contractors.

unemployment compensation taxemployee classificationindependent contractor statustemporary help firmmedical staffing industryright-to-control testsummary judgment appealtrial de novostatutory interpretationadministrative agency deference
References
20
Case No. 14-14-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) appeals the trial court's decision which granted summary judgment in favor of the Harris County Appraisal District (HCAD) and set aside fifteen TWC administrative decisions. The TWC argues that members of the Appraisal Review Board (ARB) should be considered HCAD employees, entitling them to unemployment benefits and wage credits. TWC contends that its decisions are supported by substantial evidence, including HCAD's control over ARB members' duties, payment, and tax reporting. TWC asserts that the trial court erred by providing relief beyond what HCAD requested and by failing to recognize that no legal exception for ARB members from unemployment coverage applies. TWC requests the appellate court to reverse the trial court’s order and affirm its original decisions.

Unemployment CompensationAppraisal Review BoardEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorSubstantial Evidence ReviewJudicial ReviewTexas Labor CodeTexas Tax CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate Procedure
References
32
Case No. 03-03-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

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

Berry Contracting, L.P. appealed a district court decision that affirmed the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) denial of an unemployment tax refund. Berry Contracting had sought a partial transfer of compensation experience to achieve a lower unemployment tax rate, attempting a strategy where two employees were transferred to a new entity before a larger group. TWC denied the application, ruling that the legal department's compensation experience was not "segregable" as per Labor Code § 204.084, interpreting the term to require the transferred part of the business to be capable of independent operation. The appeals court upheld the district court's judgment, finding TWC's interpretation of "segregable" as reasonable and concluding that the legal department was not a distinct and separate business able to operate independently from Berry GP, Inc.

Unemployment Tax RefundCompensation Experience TransferLabor Code InterpretationSegregable BusinessTax Savings StrategyAgency Decision ReviewStatutory ConstructionInternal ReorganizationTexas Unemployment Compensation ActJudicial Review
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 602 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