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. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Smith

Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) filed suit to set aside a worker's compensation award granted by the Industrial Accident Board in favor of Milton Carl Smith. TEIA argued Smith's disability stemmed from pre-existing conditions and a prior injury, not a job-related accident. A jury found Smith was injured on March 9, 1977, during employment with Talon Construction Company, leading to total and permanent incapacity, and awarded him $27,986.81 plus medical expenses. The appeal challenged the exclusion of physician testimony regarding Smith's injury history and the retroactive application of a 1977 amendment to Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8306, Sec. 12c. The court concluded the evidence exclusion was harmless and the amendment constituted a substantive change, thus not retroactive, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Worker's CompensationIndustrial Accident BoardPre-existing ConditionsPrior InjurySpondylolysisLaminectomyHearsay EvidenceAdmissions Against InterestBusiness Records ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zavala-Nava v. A.C. Employment, Inc.

Jose Zavala-Nava, an employee furnished by A.C. Employment, Inc. (Ajax) to Centron Corporation, sustained severe burns due to acetone fumes while cleaning work clothes. He filed a common-law negligence suit against both companies, alleging joint employment and negligence. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming workers' compensation coverage as the exclusive remedy. The trial court granted both motions. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for A.C. Employment, Inc., finding it was a workers' compensation subscriber. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment for Centron Corporation, as the summary judgment proof did not show Centron to be a subscriber under Texas Workers' Compensation statutes, despite Ajax providing coverage that named Centron as an 'alternate employer' and explicitly stating it was not intended to satisfy Centron's duty to secure its own obligations.

Workers' CompensationCommon LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityAlternate EmployerSubscriber StatusTexas LawPersonal InjuryEmployment Agency
References
12
Case No. 10-91-116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1992

Employers Insurance of Wausau, a Mutual Company v. Calvin L. Heath

Employers Insurance of Wausau appealed a judgment awarding worker's compensation benefits to Calvin Heath, stemming from an injury Heath sustained in April 1988 while working for Nucor Steel Corporation. Employers raised points of error concerning the denial of a continuance, the refusal to allow a medical witness's testimony, the sufficiency of evidence for total incapacity, and the appropriate credit for pre-trial benefits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the continuance ruling, upholding the exclusion of the medical testimony due to insufficient record, and determining the evidence supported the total incapacity finding and the credit amount. Additionally, the court agreed with Heath's cross-point, assessing damages of $2,500 against Employers for taking the appeal for delay and without sufficient cause. This decision was issued by the Tenth Court of Appeals in Texas.

Worker's CompensationAppellate ProcedureContinuanceExpert WitnessSufficiency of EvidenceTotal IncapacityPre-trial BenefitsDamages for DelayIndustrial Accident BoardMedical Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Gregory

Carl Albert Gregory, an employee of Dow Chemical Company, died after falling from a roof, leading to a claim for death benefits by his two daughters. The Texas Employers' Insurance Association (TEIA), Dow Chemical's workmen’s compensation carrier, appealed an award of death benefits, arguing Gregory's death was suicide. Initially, an appellate court reversed in favor of TEIA, but the supreme court reversed that decision, remanding the case for further consideration of the jury's verdict and exclusion of evidence. This court considered whether the jury's finding of accidental death was against the great weight of evidence, examining conflicting testimony regarding Gregory's state of mind. The court also reviewed the exclusion of a death certificate noting "probably suicidal" and earlier psychiatric hospitalization records, ultimately affirming the trial court's judgment.

Workmen's CompensationSuicide vs. Accidental DeathMedical Evidence ExclusionPsychiatric HistoryJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ReviewDeath BenefitsEvidence AdmissibilityPrima Facie EvidenceDeath Certificate
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elena E. Francisco, Inc. v. Texas Employment Commission

Manuel Diaz, a supervisor, was discharged from his employment for allegedly lying about a December 6, 1987 incident involving alleged marihuana use. The Texas Employment Commission (TEC) granted him unemployment compensation benefits, finding no misconduct. The employer appealed this decision, raising two points of error: (1) insufficient evidence to support the TEC's ruling and (2) trial court error in excluding evidence of other misconduct not presented to the Commission. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, which had upheld the TEC's ruling, emphasizing that the 'substantial evidence' rule is the correct standard of review for TEC decisions, despite statutory language implying a de novo trial. The court also found no error in the trial court's handling of the additional misconduct evidence.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployment TerminationWorkplace MisconductLyingMarihuana UseSubstantial Evidence ReviewTrial De NovoAppellate ProcedureAdministrative LawTexas Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Employers Casualty Co. v. Curry

Joe Curry, the appellee, brought a workman's compensation suit against United Employers Casualty Company, the appellant, to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award and seek compensation for total and permanent incapacity due to a back injury sustained on November 26, 1939, while employed by C. W. Sternberg. The jury found in favor of Curry, awarding 400 weeks' compensation. The appellant appealed, raising issues regarding Sunday labor, the refusal of a physical examination, jury instructions on partial incapacity and sole cause of incapacity, and the exclusion of the appellee's criminal record. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in any of the appellant's contentions.

Workman's CompensationPermanent IncapacityTotal IncapacityIndustrial Accident BoardSunday LaborPenal CodePhysical ExaminationJury InstructionsSole CauseCriminal Record Admissibility
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Puckett

Howell Puckett, an injured worker, sued Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA), his employer's workers' compensation carrier, for bad faith termination of benefits. A jury found in Puckett's favor, awarding significant damages for mental anguish, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. TEIA appealed, challenging jury arguments, sufficiency of evidence, exclusion of testimony, judicial estoppel, and the constitutionality of punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict and no reversible error in the trial court's rulings or the application of Texas's punitive damages law. The court also held that Puckett's claim was not preempted by ERISA.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBad Faith Insurance ClaimUnfair Claims Settlement PracticesPunitive DamagesJury ArgumentSufficiency of EvidenceJudicial EstoppelERISA PreemptionDue ProcessConstitutional Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gore v. Amoco Production Co.

This case concerns a common law personal injury action brought by an employee against her employer. The plaintiff was injured after falling over a roll of carpeting at work and subsequently received a settlement from the employer's compensation carrier under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Despite this, she asserted a common law action, arguing the employer was liable in a dual capacity as both employer and occupier of the premises. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed this decision, rejecting the 'dual capacity' doctrine based on strong precedent from Cohn v. Spinks Industries, Inc., which emphasized that the Workers' Compensation Law represents the exclusive remedy in Texas.

Dual Capacity DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ActExclusivity ProvisionCommon Law ActionSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewLegal Precedent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King v. Ross Coal Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, Gorman Donald King, was severely injured by a falling rock at the defendant's strip mining operation. He filed a common law action against his employer, arguing the incident was an intentional tort, thus circumventing the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The employer's motion for summary judgment was granted by the trial court, which ruled that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, emphasizing that allegations of gross or criminal negligence, or even acts "equivalent to a deliberate attempt to produce such injury," do not equate to the actual intent to injure required to bypass the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity.

Intentional TortExclusive RemedyWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentGross NegligenceActual Intent to InjureStrip Mining AccidentEmployer LiabilityAppellate DecisionTennessee Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 16,326 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