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. 12-16-00095-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2016

Albert Ray Williams v. Great Western Distributing Company of Amarillo D/B/A Bill Reed Distributing Company

Albert Ray Williams appealed the trial court's summary judgment granted in favor of Great Western Distributing Company. The case stemmed from an accident involving Williams and Dakotah Croxton, a delivery driver for Great Western. Williams sued Great Western for direct and vicarious liability under respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment on the respondeat superior claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Williams presented no evidence that Croxton was in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident because he was on a personal errand (traveling home for lunch) when the collision occurred.

Summary JudgmentRespondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentPersonal ErrandDelivery Driver AccidentEmployer LiabilityTexas Appeals CourtAffirmationNo Evidence
References
25
Case No. 03-18-00282-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2019

Yvette Mata v. Capitol Wright Distributing, LLC Dalton Marek And Wright Distributing Co., Inc.

Yvette Mata appealed the district court's dismissal of her personal injury suit against Capitol Wright Distributing, LLC, Dalton Marek, and Wright Distributing Co., Inc. for want of prosecution. She contended that the district court provided inadequate notice of its intent to dismiss and erred in denying her motion to reinstate the case. The appellate court found that Mata was presumed to know Williamson County's local rules requiring a motion to retain, thus deeming the dismissal notice adequate. Furthermore, the court determined that any potential due process issues were rectified by the post-dismissal hearing on Mata's motion to reinstate. Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that Mata failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in prosecuting her case.

Personal injurydismissal for want of prosecutionmotion to reinstateappellate reviewdue diligenceinadequate noticeabuse of discretionTexas Rules of Civil Procedurelocal court rulesappellate procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2015

Matter of Mangan v. Try-It Distributing Co., Inc.

In 2000, Tracy Mangan, an employee of Try-It Distributing Co., Inc., suffered a work-related back injury. He was later classified with a permanent partial disability, and liability for his claim was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. His average weekly wage was established at $813.49. Mangan passed away in July 2012 due to complications from causally-related back surgery. Subsequently, his widow, the claimant, filed a claim for death benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially determined that benefits should be calculated based on the decedent's average weekly wage at the time of his death. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this decision, ruling that the calculation should be based on the average weekly wage at the time of the 2000 accident. The claimant appealed this modification, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 14 and 16(5)(4) which support calculating death benefits based on the average weekly wage at the date of accident or disablement.

Death BenefitsAverage Weekly WagePermanent Partial DisabilitySpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWork-Related InjuryDate of AccidentDate of DeathAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardCalculation of Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monte Carlo Distributing Co. v. Rosas

Joe Rosas sued Southern Brewing Company and Monte Carlo Distributing Company for damages resulting from a collision between his truck and one driven by Barrett, owned by Monte Carlo Distributing Company. The collision occurred when Barrett attempted to pass Rosas's truck, which was carrying a long culvert without a required red flag. A jury found Barrett negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout and awarded Rosas $7,500. Monte Carlo Distributing Company appealed, citing conflicting jury findings and the trial court's refusal to submit defensive issues regarding Rosas's alleged contributory negligence in not displaying the red flag. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, concluding that the failure to submit these defensive issues, which could have constituted a complete defense, was an error.

CollisionTruck accidentNegligenceContributory negligenceLookoutRed flag statuteDamagesJury findingsAppellate reviewReversal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. 01-03-00753-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

Joseph Earl Cavender v. Houston Distributing Co., Inc.

Joseph Earl Cavender sued Houston Distributing Company, Inc. for wrongful termination, alleging a violation of Texas Labor Code section 451.001 after his employment was terminated due to an absence exceeding 180 consecutive days while on workers' compensation leave. A jury ruled in favor of Houston Distributing, and the trial court issued a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, Cavender contended his termination violated the Texas Labor Code as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing Texas Supreme Court precedent that uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge, even when the absence is related to a workers' compensation claim.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAbsence Control PolicyTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployment LawJury VerdictAffirmed JudgmentEmployer Policy
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Limestone Products Distribution, Inc. v. McNamara

This case involves a fatal collision between Coy Mathis's car and Tom McNamara's motorcycle. McNamara's survivors sued Mathis and Limestone Products Distribution, Inc., alleging Mathis's negligence. The central issue was whether Mathis was an independent contractor or an employee of Limestone, and if an employee, whether he was acting within the course and scope of his employment. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Limestone, but the court of appeals reversed. The Texas Supreme Court ultimately reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the summary-judgment evidence conclusively proved Mathis was an independent contractor at the time of the accident, thus Limestone was not liable for his negligence.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusCourse of EmploymentSummary JudgmentNegligenceVicarious LiabilityRight to Control TestMotor Vehicle AccidentFatal InjuryAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TTL Distribution, Inc. v. Local 99, Office & Distribution Employees Union

This case concerns a dispute between TTL Distribution, Inc. (formerly Ups 'N Downs, Inc.), an employer, and the Office and Distribution Employees’ Union Local 99, I.L.G.W.U. The employer sought to vacate an arbitration award, while the Union moved to confirm it. The underlying arbitration stemmed from Ups 'N Downs' decision to close its warehouse and terminate employees after selling its retail stores, without ensuring the buyer assumed contractual obligations under their collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Union, ordering back pay, vacation pay, and fund contributions. The District Court upheld the arbitrator's decision, emphasizing the broad scope of arbitration in labor relations and confirming the award.

Arbitration AwardLabor DisputeUnion ContractCollective BargainingEmployer SaleEmployee TerminationContractual ObligationsJudicial DeferenceFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anzaldua v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Esther Anzaldua against American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, the compensation carrier. Anzaldua was injured on the job and sued after rejecting an award from the Texas Industrial Accident Board. A jury awarded her damages for partial incapacity and medical expenses, but Anzaldua appealed, alleging the medical award was insufficient, that certain medical reports were improperly admitted due to hearsay, and that a supplemental jury charge was coercive. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the jury's verdict supported by evidence, the medical reports properly admitted, and the supplemental charge not coercive.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesJury VerdictEvidence AdmissibilitySupplemental Jury ChargeCoercionIncapacityAppealTexas LawInsurance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 5,494 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