Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Hays, a full-time high school student, sought unemployment benefits after his part-time employment with H. E. Butt Grocery Company was terminated. He restricted his availability for work to after-school hours and Saturdays. The Texas Employment Commission deemed him ineligible, a decision initially reversed by the Court of Civil Appeals. This court, however, reversed the appellate court's judgment, ruling that Hays was not 'available for work' under Article 5221b-2 of the Unemployment Compensation Act. The court held that individuals, including students, who impose time restrictions on their work availability for personal reasons and effectively detach themselves from the labor market, are ineligible for benefits.

Unemployment CompensationAvailability for WorkStudent EmploymentPart-time WorkLabor MarketEligibility for BenefitsTexas LawStatutory ConstructionJudicial ReviewPersonal Restrictions

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 21, 1948

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves a claim for workmen's compensation by the widow and children of T. G. Inge, a "roughneck" who died in an automobile accident. Inge was employed by P. W. Appleby, a drilling contractor, and was paid a mileage fee to transport himself and his fellow workers to and from a remote drilling site in Pecos County, Texas. The central legal question was whether Inge was acting in the course of his employment or as an independent contractor at the time of his fatal accident. Both the district court and the Court of Civil Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. This court affirmed the judgment, holding that the transportation arrangement was an essential and integral part of Inge's employment contract, thereby placing him within the course of his employment under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and rejecting the argument that he was an independent contractor for the transportation service.

Workmen's CompensationCourse of EmploymentIndependent ContractorTransportation AgreementFatal AccidentDrilling CrewMileage ReimbursementTexas LawAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This proceeding involved the Unified Court System (UCS) challenging a determination by the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB had found that UCS violated the Taylor Law by unilaterally issuing an administrative order in December 1997 that amended regulations (22 NYCRR part 108) related to court reporters' fees for selling transcripts to litigants. The court reviewed PERB's findings that the new page-rate guidelines and a mandatory "Minute Agreement Form" constituted an improper practice by altering terms of employment. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to support PERB's finding that the page-rate guidelines actually limited reporters' compensation. Furthermore, while the Agreement Form did alter some aspects of employment, its impact was minimal and outweighed by UCS's broader mission to ensure understandable, uniform, timely, and affordable access to justice. Therefore, the court annulled PERB's determination and granted the petition.

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The claimant, a full-time college student who worked part-time, obtained full-time employment as a coding clerk during the summer break. When the school year resumed, the employer refused the claimant's request for part-time work, leading the claimant to leave employment to return to full-time studies and seek part-time work. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially found this termination to be under non-disqualifying conditions, asserting the claimant maintained part-time worker status despite summer full-time work. However, the appellate court disagreed, consistently holding that voluntarily leaving available employment to attend school does not constitute good cause under the Unemployment Insurance Law, deeming the reasons personal and non-compelling. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Voluntary QuitGood Cause for Leaving EmploymentUnemployment Benefits DisqualificationStudent EmploymentPart-time WorkFull-time WorkSchool AttendancePersonal Reasons for QuittingEmployer Refusal to AccommodateUnemployment Insurance Law

References

Case No. 13-17-00346-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 09, 2019

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 18, 2017

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiff Jeffery Philpott, a former Vice President at SUNY’s College of Optometry, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit alleging sexual orientation discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Initially, the State of New York and the University of the State of New York were named as defendants but were later dismissed, as was a claim under the ADA, leaving only State University of New York (SUNY) as a defendant. The court evaluated whether sexual orientation discrimination is cognizable under Title VII, finding that it is due to the evolving legal landscape and recent circuit court decisions. It concluded that plaintiff plausibly alleged his claims and that they were not time-barred. However, the court dismissed the Title IX claim, determining that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination in federally funded educational institutions. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITitle IXMotion to DismissGender StereotypingStatute of LimitationsEmployment DiscriminationFederal Court

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Tom Spielbauer appealed a take-nothing judgment in his workers' compensation claim against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, seeking benefits for an injury sustained in his part-time employment. The jury found he suffered partial incapacity with a reduced earning capacity, but his pre-injury average weekly wage was not explicitly determined. The trial court's subsequent take-nothing judgment relied on a deemed finding that conflicted with the jury's verdict of partial incapacity. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, highlighting the irreconcilable conflict between the findings and instructing the trial court to make a written finding on the omitted wage element.

Workers' CompensationPartial IncapacityAverage Weekly WageJury FindingsConflicting VerdictDeemed FindingsAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandTexas LawEarning Capacity

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Michael Reynolds suffered a work-related injury and received compensation benefits from his employer's insurer, Pacific Employers Insurance Company. Pacific later terminated benefits, arguing Reynolds failed to file a timely claim. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission's Appeals Panel affirmed in part and remanded the 'good cause' issue. Pacific then sought judicial review in district court before a final administrative decision. The Appeals Panel subsequently absolved Pacific of liability. Both parties moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted in favor of Reynolds. On appeal, the court found the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Pacific had not exhausted administrative remedies and Reynolds failed to serve the TWCC with his counterclaim. The appellate court therefore vacated the trial court's judgment and dismissed the suit.

JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals PanelSubject Matter JurisdictionService RequirementsExhaustion of RemediesTimeliness of ClaimGood Cause

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This is an appeal in a workman's compensation case. Leon H. Henshaw, an employee of Great Western Drilling Company, sought compensation benefits from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association for injuries sustained in an automobile accident while commuting home from work. The trial court instructed a verdict for the appellee, finding that Henshaw was not within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Henshaw contended that transporting a water can made his trip a 'substantial mission' for his employer. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the water can transport was merely incidental to his commute and did not place him within the scope of employment at the time of injury.

Workman's CompensationScope of EmploymentCommute RuleGoing and Coming RuleAutomobile AccidentPersonal MissionSubstantial MissionOil Field WorkerEmployer ResponsibilityIncidental Duties

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves an appeal by Employers Casualty Company (Employers) against a trial court's order mandating the withholding of Michael Toliver's workers' compensation benefits to satisfy his child support obligations. Employers argued that the applicable law at the time of Toliver's injury in 1990, Texas Revised Civil Statutes article 8306, § 3(b), exempted such benefits from garnishment or withholding. The Texas Attorney General countered, arguing for the application of a newer statute, article 8308-4.08(b), or that legislative intent supported the withholding. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the law in effect at the time of injury governs the case, and therefore, Employers is not required to withhold the benefits. However, the court clarified that the benefits are still available for child support directly from Michael Toliver after he receives them.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsChild Support EnforcementWithholding OrderStatutory InterpretationRetroactivity of LawExemption from GarnishmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance LawDate of Injury Rule

References

Showing 1-10 of 20,533 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Unemployment CompensationAvailability for WorkStudent EmploymentPart-time WorkLabor MarketEligibility for BenefitsTexas LawStatutory ConstructionJudicial ReviewPersonal Restrictions

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 21, 1948

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Workmen's CompensationCourse of EmploymentIndependent ContractorTransportation AgreementFatal AccidentDrilling CrewMileage ReimbursementTexas LawAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Public Employment RelationsTaylor LawCourt ReportersTranscript FeesAdministrative OrderCollective BargainingTerms of EmploymentJudicial AdministrationAccess to JusticePublic Policy

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

References

Case No. 13-17-00346-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 09, 2019

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 18, 2017

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Sexual Orientation DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITitle IXMotion to DismissGender StereotypingStatute of LimitationsEmployment DiscriminationFederal Court

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Workers' CompensationPartial IncapacityAverage Weekly WageJury FindingsConflicting VerdictDeemed FindingsAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandTexas LawEarning Capacity

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals PanelSubject Matter JurisdictionService RequirementsExhaustion of RemediesTimeliness of ClaimGood Cause

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Workman's CompensationScope of EmploymentCommute RuleGoing and Coming RuleAutomobile AccidentPersonal MissionSubstantial MissionOil Field WorkerEmployer ResponsibilityIncidental Duties

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Workers' Compensation BenefitsChild Support EnforcementWithholding OrderStatutory InterpretationRetroactivity of LawExemption from GarnishmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance LawDate of Injury Rule

References

Showing 1-10 of 20,533 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.