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. 07-12-00328-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2014

Janet Bontke, Individually and as Guardian of the Estate and Person of Nolan Bontke, a Ward v. Cargill Meat Logistics Solution, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation and Tulia Feed Lot, Inc.

Janet Bontke, individually and as guardian of Nolan Bontke, appealed a trial court judgment denying recovery against Cargill Meat Logistics Solution, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, and Tulia Feed Lot, Inc. Nolan Bontke, an independent contractor, sustained injuries while loading a steer at Tulia Feed Lot when he was struck by an agitated animal. The appeal raised issues concerning references to insurance, the exclusion of a rebuttal expert witness, the classification of cattle handling as inherently dangerous, and the factual sufficiency of the jury's negligence findings. The appellate court overruled all of Bontke's issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

negligenceindependent contractorcattle handlinginherently dangerous activityevidence admissionexpert witness exclusionfactual sufficiencyappealTexaspersonal injury
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ford v. Grand United Order of Odd Fellows of Texas

The case involves A. E. Dixon Ford, assignee of an insurance policy beneficiary (Ethel R. Evans), suing Grand United Order of Odd Fellows of the State of Texas for burial expenses after the death of the insured, Maggie Limbrick. Initially, Ford obtained a default judgment, but the defendant sought to review this judgment, claiming improper service and non-assignability of the policy. The trial court consolidated the cases, set aside the default judgment, and allowed only the burial benefit recovery. On appeal, the court affirmed that service on a local agent was void as the statute mandated service on the Commissioner of Insurance for fraternal benefit societies. However, the appellate court disagreed with the trial court regarding the assignability of the policy after the insured's death, finding such a prohibition unreasonable and void. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, allowing Ford to recover the full policy amount.

Insurance AssignmentFraternal Benefit SocietyService of ProcessDefault JudgmentPolicy AssignabilityPost-Loss AssignmentBeneficiary RightsTexas LawStatutory InterpretationPublic Policy
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Car-Freshner Corp. v. Big Lots Stores, Inc.

Plaintiffs Car-Freshner Corporation and Julius Samann LTD sued Defendants Big Lots Stores, Inc. and Midwestern Home Products, Inc. for trademark infringement and unfair competition over their sale of tree-shaped air fresheners. Plaintiffs own registered trademarks for their air fresheners. Applying the Polaroid factors, the Court found a likelihood of consumer confusion due to strong marks, striking product similarity, competitive proximity, and low buyer sophistication. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement. Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of punitive damages claims and a determination that the case was not exceptional under the Lanham Act, was denied, as factual disputes regarding intent and willfulness remained for trial.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionSummary JudgmentLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid FactorsLanham ActPunitive DamagesPost-Sale ConfusionTrade DressConsumer Protection
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Shirley A. Turner, a customer service representative for A.H. Belo Corporation, sustained injuries in a car collision within her employer's Communications Center parking lot while driving to work. Her intention was to access a public parking lot across the street, as her usual route was under construction and Belo did not provide her parking. Turner worked at a separate Belo facility at 712 Commerce, not the Communications Center. She appealed a summary judgment granted to the insurance carrier, arguing her injuries were compensable under the access doctrine. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the access doctrine does not apply when an employee is injured on employer premises that are not their actual place of work, and when the employer has not provided that specific parking for the employee. The court concluded the workers' compensation statute was not intended to cover injuries in such situations.

Workers' CompensationAccess DoctrineCourse of EmploymentSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityGoing and Coming RuleEmployer's PremisesParking Lot InjuryAppellate ReviewJudicial Affirmation
References
10
Case No. 05-21-00644-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

Murphy Oil USA, Inc. D/B/A Murphy Oil USA 7350 v. Donnetta Stegall

Donnetta Stegall, an employee of Murphy Oil USA, Inc., sued her employer for premises liability after falling in the store's parking lot and injuring her ankle before her scheduled shift. Murphy Oil appealed the trial court's judgment in Stegall's favor, asserting that the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA) provided the exclusive remedy, thereby barring Stegall's common law claim. The central legal question was whether Stegall's injury occurred within the "course and scope of employment," which would activate the TWCA's exclusive remedy provision, specifically considering the "going-to-and-from-work" exclusion and the "access doctrine" exception. The appellate court determined that the "access doctrine" did not apply because the parking lot was accessible to the general public, not exclusively designated for employees. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Stegall's injury was not work-related under the TWCA, and thus the exclusive remedy provision did not preclude her premises liability claim.

Premises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionCourse and Scope of EmploymentAccess DoctrineGoing-to-and-from-work RuleEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. ADJ 7863081
Regular
Apr 10, 2012

RONNIE BROWN vs. MASTER PLUMBING; RISK ENTERPRISE, AMERICAN ALL RISK LOSS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original award, finding the applicant was not entitled to temporary total disability from January 5, 2011, to August 31, 2011. The Board determined that despite the applicant's hand and wrist injury, his termination for documented performance issues meant he lost wages for reasons other than his industrial injury. The employer's offer of modified duty was considered genuine, and the applicant's misconduct superseded the "odd lot" doctrine. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to temporary disability benefits during the contested period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityModified DutyTermination for CauseOdd Lot DoctrineVocational RehabilitationWage LossPerformance IssuesSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Case No. 09-16-00438-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

OCI Beaumont LLC v. Barajas

This permissive appeal examines whether the "access doctrine" can expand vicarious liability to hold an employer responsible for an employee's negligence during their commute in a parking lot arranged by the employer but not owned by them. Yazmin Barajas sued OCI Beaumont LLC and its employee, Ikechukwu Obodo, after Obodo hit her with his truck. Barajas argued Obodo was in the course and scope of his employment based on the access doctrine. The trial court denied OCI's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the "access doctrine" is limited to workers' compensation cases and does not extend to general vicarious liability, thus ruling Obodo was not in the course and scope of his employment. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Vicarious liabilityAccess doctrineCourse and scope of employmentSummary judgmentInterlocutory appealCommuting accidentParking lot injuryEmployer liabilityNegligenceTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
26
Case No. ADJ10864843
Regular
Nov 15, 2018

YOLANDA PLASCENCIA vs. HYUNDAI CAPITAL AMERICA, SOMPO AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who sustained injuries after falling into a pothole on her employer's premises during a break. The applicant was in the process of switching vehicles with her daughter when the incident occurred. The defendant argued the injury was not AOE/COE, as the personal vehicle exchange served no employer benefit and the personal comfort doctrine did not apply. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the injury compensable under the personal comfort doctrine. The Board reasoned that it's reasonably contemplated for employees to access the employer's parking lot during breaks, and moving a personal car is a personal convenience incidental to employment.

AOE/COEPersonal Comfort DoctrineIndustrial InjuryCourse of EmploymentWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJEmployer's PremisesPaid Break
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bordwine v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Appellant, a licensed vocational nurse, sustained injuries in her employer's parking lot while arriving for work. Her workers' compensation claim, initially granted by the Industrial Accident Board for total and permanent disability, was appealed by the Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. A jury subsequently found that her injury did not occur in the course of employment, leading to a take-nothing judgment against her. On appeal, the court examined whether the injury fell under the 'access doctrine' exception to the going-and-coming rule. The appellate court determined that the undisputed evidence established, as a matter of law, that the appellant was acting within the scope of her employment when injured on the employer-provided parking lot. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentAccess DoctrineParking Lot InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate LawReversed and RemandedJury FindingTexasVocational Nurse
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2003

Chatham Green, Inc. v. Bloomberg

Petitioners Chatham Green, Inc. and Chatham Towers, Inc. initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the Mayor, the New York City Police Department (NYPD), and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly. They sought to enjoin the construction of a permanent closure of Park Row without an environmental analysis under SEQRA and to prevent the use of James Madison Plaza as a parking lot for NYPD vehicles. The court granted the motion in part, ordering respondents to conduct an environmental assessment for the Park Row barriers and enjoining them from using James Madison Plaza as a parking lot, effective December 31, 2003, citing violations of the public trust doctrine. The court allowed the Park Row barriers to remain during the environmental review due to security concerns but set strict deadlines for the completion of the assessment and any required environmental impact statement.

CPLR Article 78Environmental ReviewSEQRANew York City Police DepartmentPark Row ClosureJames Madison PlazaPublic Trust DoctrineTraffic Control DevicesInjunctive ReliefEnvironmental Impact Statement
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,139 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