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. 03-21-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2023

Star Houston, Inc.// Cross-Appellant,Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC N/K/A Volvo Car USA, LLC, and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles// Star Houston, Inc., and Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles

Star Houston, Inc. and Volvo Car USA, LLC appealed a Final Order of the Motor Vehicle Board. The administrative proceeding involved Star protesting Volvo's termination of its franchise and alleging violations of Occupations Code chapter 2301 by Volvo's Dealer Incentive Programs. Star and Volvo petitioned for judicial review, which was subsequently removed to the Court of Appeals. The court rejected the Board's standing challenge against Volvo's cross-appeal. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusions that Volvo's CSI and SSI programs violated Occupations Code sections 2301.467(a)(1) and 2301.468, upholding that they required adherence to unreasonable sales/service standards and treated dealers unfairly. Additionally, the court rejected Star's claims that other incentive programs violated various statutory provisions. Ultimately, the Motor Vehicle Board's Final Order was affirmed.

Texas Court of AppealsMotor Vehicle BoardFranchise TerminationDealer Incentive ProgramsOccupations CodeAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStandingSubstantial Evidence RuleCustomer Satisfaction Index (CSI)
References
38
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06033
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 2022

Matter of Bernal v. New York Apple Car Serv.

Claimant's spouse, a cab driver dispatched by New York Apple Car Service (NYACS), was fatally stabbed while working. Claimant filed for workers' compensation death benefits. NYACS, a member of the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF), disputed liability, contending the decedent was a black car operator, making the New York Black Car Operator's Injury Compensation Fund (NYBCOICF) responsible. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision that the decedent was an independent livery driver, holding the ILDBF carrier liable. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, rejecting the argument that the vehicle's affiliation with the NYBCOICF was determinative and relying on precedent set in _Matter of Cisnero v Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund_.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsIndependent Livery DriverBlack Car OperatorFund LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewDispatch ServiceEmployer ResponsibilityVehicle Affiliation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1992

Claim of Le Fevre v. Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc.

This is an appeal from a Worker's Compensation Board decision finding an employer-employee relationship between a claimant and Tel-A-Car of New York, Inc. The claimant, a franchisee of Tel-A-Car's two-way radio dispatch transportation service, was required to operate a specific luxury car, lease a radio, charge Tel-A-Car's set fares, and abide by strict operational rules and a dress code. Despite some freedom in work hours, the Board based its determination of an employer-employee relationship on Tel-A-Car's significant control over car type, radio leasing, fare setting, and dispatching. The appellate court found these incidents of control sufficient to support the Board's determination. Furthermore, the court affirmed the decision and declined to consider a new argument regarding the State Franchise Act, as it was not raised before the Board.

Employer-employee relationshipWorkers' Compensation LawFranchise agreementControl testAppellate procedureFactual issueScope of employmentTransportation industryNew York lawGeneral Business Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Colin v. Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

The claimant, a for-hire driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident, naming Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc. and Yolette Kernisan as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claimant was an independent contractor of Express. On appeal, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the finding that the claimant was not an employee of Yolette Kernisan and remitting the matter for further consideration regarding Kernisan's relationship with the claimant, citing an improper control standard. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of no employment relationship with Express, supported by substantial evidence regarding drivers supplying their own vehicles and expenses, and ability to work for other companies.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceVehicle OwnershipControl TestRemittalAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. Snappy Car Rental, Inc.

Plaintiff Barbara J. Morris rented a vehicle from Snappy Car Rental, and the agreement included indemnification clauses. She was later injured in an accident while her husband was driving the rental car and subsequently sued Snappy Car Rental and others. Snappy Car Rental counterclaimed for contractual indemnification and attorney's fees. The Supreme Court initially granted Snappy's motion for conditional summary judgment on indemnification and fees. However, the appellate court modified this decision, ruling that the indemnification provision was against public policy as it attempted to circumvent Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388. Consequently, Snappy's entitlement to indemnification was limited to liability exceeding its statutorily mandated coverage, and its request for attorney's fees was denied.

rental car agreementindemnification clausepublic policyVehicle and Traffic Lawvicarious liabilityinsurance coveragesummary judgmentcontract interpretationpersonal injuryappellate review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Life & Accident Co. v. Wade

This case involves an appeal by the Home Life & Accident Company from an award of the Industrial Accident Board in favor of C. Wade. Wade, an an employee of A. C. MacParlane, sustained injuries while loading steel cranes onto a barge in the navigable Sabine River. The central legal question was whether Wade's maritime injury fell under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law or the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts. The trial court initially awarded compensation to Wade under state law. However, the appellate court, citing various U.S. Supreme Court precedents and an Attorney General's opinion, concluded that maritime injuries are subject to federal admiralty law, thus precluding state workers' compensation jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the appellate court ruled in favor of the Home Life & Accident Company.

Admiralty lawMaritime jurisdictionWorkers' compensationFederal preemptionState lawInjury at workNavigable watersLongshoremanSabine RiverEmployer liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keefe v. General Accident Insurance

Plaintiff Violet O'Keefe initiated an action against General Accident Insurance Company, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation based on age and sex, violating Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. O'Keefe claimed a discriminatory work environment and unlawful termination following her refusal of a proposed job transfer. The defendant argued O'Keefe's performance was poor and the transfer was a lateral move. The District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the federal discrimination and retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether General Accident's reasons for termination were pretextual. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law claims, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
19
Case No. 13-21-00361-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Accident Fund General Insurance Company v. Rodrigo Mendiola

Rodrigo Mendiola, a truck driver, suffered severe burns in an accident, leading to an above-the-knee amputation and significant injury to his left hand. His employer's workers' compensation insurer, Accident Fund General Insurance Company, disputed his claim for lifetime income benefits based on the total loss of use of his left hand. The trial court, applying the Travelers Insurance Co. v. Seabolt standard, found sufficient evidence that Mendiola's hand lacked substantial utility, entitling him to benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the application of the Seabolt standard and concluding the evidence factually supported the finding of total loss of use.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsTotal Loss of UseBurn InjuriesHand InjuryAmputationMedical EvidenceFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewStare Decisis
References
29
Case No. ADJ8550333
Regular
May 15, 2015

STEPHEN MARTIN BLOXHAM vs. LITHIA FORD MAZDA SUZUKI, HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY, ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that a car salesman's injuries from a car accident while purchasing cigarettes on a paid, employer-authorized break arose out of and occurred in the course of employment. This falls under the personal comfort doctrine, an exception to the going and coming rule, and the employer's encouragement of "prospecting" at the store further supported coverage. The Board rejected the defendant's argument that smoking's health detriments should disqualify it from the personal comfort doctrine.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactOrderOpinion on DecisionAOE/COEgoing and coming rulepersonal comfort doctrinepaid breakemployer's permissionprospecting
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,008 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