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. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dresser Industries, Inc. v. Lee

This Texas Supreme Court opinion addresses a conflict among courts of appeals regarding the admissibility of employer negligence as a sole cause defense in personal injury lawsuits where the employer is immune under workers' compensation. The Court clarifies its prior decision in Varela v. American Petrofina Co., ruling that it does not bar a defendant from introducing evidence that the plaintiff's employer's negligence was the sole cause of injury. The case involves Arthur B. Lee, who sued Dresser Industries, Inc., a silica supplier, after developing silicosis from working at Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. The trial court had erroneously excluded evidence of Tyler Pipe's negligence as a sole cause. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case, also providing guidance on jury instructions for sole cause and contributory negligence in future proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSole CauseContributory NegligenceProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnSilicosisEmployer NegligenceComparative ResponsibilityJury InstructionsEvidence Admissibility
References
18
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 16-CA-12241
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1985

Dunn v. Pilgrim Industries, Inc.

The Regional Director of Region Sixteen of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Michael Dunn, filed a verified petition for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against Pilgrim Industries, Inc. The petition alleged that Pilgrim Industries engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 540, following its acquisition of Pluss-Tex Poultry Company, and by unilaterally implementing changes to employee benefits and work shifts. The court found reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices had occurred. However, it declined to issue a mandatory bargaining order, citing insufficient evidence of irreparable harm to the Union that could not be remedied by a final Board order. The court instead granted a prohibitory injunction, restraining Pilgrim Industries from actions intended to erode employee support or membership in the Union and from unlawfully dissipating Union strength, while explicitly allowing the previously instituted pay increase, pension plan, and second work shift to remain. The ultimate resolution of successor employer status and bargaining duty was deferred to the NLRB.

National Labor Relations ActSection 10(j) InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeSuccessor EmployerDuty to BargainUnilateral ChangesCollective BargainingLabor DisputeTemporary InjunctionProhibitory Injunction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Snider Industries

Paul O. Davis sued Snider Industries, a non-subscriber of worker’s compensation insurance, for personal injuries (hernia and lower back) sustained while operating a trailer dolly. The jury found Snider negligent in failing to inspect its dollies but found no proximate cause for Davis's injuries, leading to a take-nothing judgment. Davis appealed on several points, including the exclusion of deposition testimony of Bill and Judith Moon, medical bills prepaid by Snider, and log records on trailer No. 56. The appellant also challenged the jury's findings on negligence and proximate cause as being against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the exclusions and upholding the jury's findings on negligence and causation.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseWorker's Compensation Non-SubscriberEvidence ExclusionDeposition TestimonyMedical BillsLog RecordsAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salomon v. Adderley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs Geordany J. Salomon, Donielle Lewis, Dwight Edghill, and Shanroy Powell sought to amend their complaint against Adderley Industries, Inc. to include American Communications Industries, Inc. and several individuals (Lawrence Presser, Joseph Misseri, Vincent Cestaro) as additional defendants. They also requested to add a new claim under New York Labor Law Section 195. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York reviewed the motion, applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). The court granted the motion to add the new corporate and individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the amendment after new information emerged during discovery and that the proposed claims of employer status were plausible under the FLSA and NYLL. However, the request to add the NYLL § 195 claim was denied because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient good cause for its late inclusion.

Amendment of PleadingsJoinder of PartiesEmployer LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ClaimsDiscoveryGood Cause StandardUndue DelayFutility of Amendment
References
36
Case No. 2016-02-0297
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2017

Lawson, Linda V. HDK Industries, Inc.

Employee Linda Lawson's workers' compensation claim for a right leg and ankle injury was denied by her employer, HDK Industries, Inc., after a drug test showed positive for oxycodone, leading to her termination. Lawson asserted the drug test results were incorrect and caused by poppy seeds. Following a delayed filing of a dispute certification notice, the trial court issued a show cause order for Lawson's failure to request a hearing. Despite the employer's motion to dismiss, the trial court declined, citing the delayed filing of the dispute certification notice with the clerk and an ambiguity between statutory and regulatory deadlines for requesting a hearing. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in refusing to dismiss the case.

Appeal DecisionMotion to DismissShow Cause HearingDrug Test ResultsIntoxication DefenseStatutory AmbiguityRegulatory ConflictAbuse of DiscretionProcedural DismissalDispute Certification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franks v. Sematech, Inc.

This case involves an injured employee's third-party liability cause of action and an insurance carrier's derivative claim of subrogation under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Appellant Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company appealed from a summary judgment in favor of appellees Sem-atech, Inc. and Burle Industries, Inc., while appellant Charlie Franks appealed the dismissal of his plea in intervention due to the statute of limitations. Franks was injured in 1991, and Industrial Indemnity, his employer's workers' compensation carrier, filed a subrogation lawsuit in 1993. Franks intervened in 1994, asserting negligence claims against the appellees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of Franks's plea, ruling it was time-barred and could not relate back to Industrial Indemnity's original petition, which only asserted its subrogation claim, not Franks's underlying third-party liability claim. Consequently, the appellate court also affirmed the summary judgment for appellees, finding Industrial Indemnity's derivative subrogation claim moot since Franks's recovery rights could not be established.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilityAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionDerivative ClaimsTexas LawInsurance Carrier
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Naylor Industries, Inc.

Mary Rodriguez sued Naylor Industries for loss of consortium after her husband, Juan, was severely injured in a work-related truck accident. Juan had reported the truck's dangerously worn tires to his supervisor, David Cameron, who dismissively ordered him to drive it. After a front tire blew out, another supervisor, Nolan Wallace, instructed Juan to replace it with a rear tire and continue, despite safety and legal concerns. Subsequently, a rear tire blew, causing the truck to flip and injure Juan. The lower courts granted summary judgment for Naylor, ruling no intentional tort occurred. The Supreme Court reversed, finding sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding Naylor's intentional conduct, thereby precluding summary judgment and remanding for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationIntentional TortLoss of ConsortiumSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityUnsafe Work ConditionsTruck AccidentGross NegligenceFact QuestionReversal
References
8
Case No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2014

Ricardo Torres v. Precision Industries, P.I., d/b/a Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick and Vicki Hedrick

Ricardo Torres, an undocumented worker, appealed the Hardeman County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge claim against Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick, and Vicki Hedrick. Torres alleged he was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim for a back injury sustained on the job. The trial court had ruled that an unauthorized alien lacked standing to bring such a claim as they were incapable of legal employment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that undocumented employees do have standing to pursue retaliatory discharge claims in Tennessee, as the Workers' Compensation Act broadly defines 'employee' to include those lawfully or unlawfully employed. The court reasoned that retaliatory discharge actions protect employees' rights to file workers' compensation claims and preventing such claims by unauthorized aliens would create an incentive for employers to hire illegal workers and deny them benefits without consequence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUndocumented WorkerImmigration StatusSummary Judgment ReversalEmployee StandingEmployment LawTennessee Appellate CourtPublic Policy ExceptionEmployer Retaliation
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 10,076 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