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. 01-22-00313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

Team Industrial Services, Inc. v. Kelli Most, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Jesse Henson

Kelli Most, individually and as personal representative of the estate of Jesse Henson, sued Team Industrial Services, Inc. for wrongful death and survival claims after Henson died from severe burns sustained in a steam release at a Kansas power plant. Most alleged Team was negligent in servicing pressure relief valves. The jury found Team 90% negligent and Westar (Henson's employer) 10% negligent, awarding Most $222 million in damages. On appeal, Team challenged the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and its refusal to apply Kansas law, which has limits on non-economic damages and different joint and several liability rules. The appellate court found that Kansas law should have been applied for proportionate responsibility and wrongful death damages caps, and that the jury's non-economic damages award was excessive due to improper arguments. The court also determined that all forum non conveniens factors favored dismissal to Kansas, vacating the judgment and dismissing the case.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionNegligence (Corporate)Forum Non ConveniensChoice of Law (Conflicts)Damages CapsComparative NegligenceExcessive DamagesAppellate Court DecisionIndustrial Safety
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faulk Management Services v. Lufkin Industries, Inc.

Faulk Management Services initiated a declaratory judgment action to determine if it had a duty to indemnify and defend Lufkin Industries, Inc. under a written agreement. This arose from an underlying personal injury lawsuit filed by Alta V. Harrison, a Faulk employee, against Lufkin for an on-the-job injury. The trial court granted Lufkin's motion for summary judgment, compelling Faulk to indemnify and defend. Faulk appealed, arguing the agreement failed the express negligence test and the workers' compensation bar. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the contract's terms sufficiently met both legal requirements.

IndemnityDeclaratory JudgmentExpress Negligence RuleWorkers Compensation BarContract InterpretationHold Harmless AgreementSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceThird-Party Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2008

Finkel v. Omega Communication Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Gerald Finkel, Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry, sued Omega Communication Services, Inc. for delinquent contributions to employee benefit plans under ERISA and LMRA. Omega failed to appear, leading to a default judgment motion. Magistrate Judge Azrack recommended granting default judgment, awarding $122,846.59 to the plaintiff, including unpaid contributions, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. District Judge John Gleeson adopted this Report and Recommendation, directing the clerk to enter judgment in accordance with the recommendation. The case details calculations for various benefit plans and addresses the reasonableness of attorney fees and costs.

ERISALMRADefault JudgmentDelinquent ContributionsEmployee BenefitsMulti-employer PlanAttorneys FeesLiquidated DamagesPrejudgment InterestCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
19
Case No. 01-11-00471-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2013

a & L Industrial Services, Inc. v. Shedrick Oatis and Willie Smith

Appellees Shedrick Oatis and Willie Smith sued their former employer, Appellant A & L Industrial Services Inc., claiming discrimination and retaliatory action under Texas Labor Code 21.055. A jury found retaliatory action and awarded them back pay and compensatory and punitive damages. A & L appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s findings and that the trial court erred in submitting spoliation instructions. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the jury's findings on retaliation, damages, and malice, and that A & L waived its objection to the spoliation instruction.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory ActionTexas Labor CodeSufficiency of EvidenceMaliceCompensatory DamagesBack PaySpoliation InstructionAppellate CourtJury Verdict
References
50
Case No. 13-14-00404-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2015

Luis Baldemar Rios Hernandez A/K/A Arturo Rios v. W-S Industrial Services, Inc.

Luis Baldemar Rios Hernandez (Rios) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of W-S Industrial Services, Inc. (WSI). Rios was injured while working as a temporary employee for WSI, supplied by A.R. Management. He sued WSI, but WSI sought summary judgment, arguing his claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA), contending Rios was a 'borrowed servant' and WSI had workers' compensation insurance. Rios challenged the authentication of WSI's insurance policy and disputed his employment status. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that WSI sufficiently authenticated its insurance policy and that Rios's own testimony established WSI's right to control the details of his work, thus confirming his status as a borrowed employee for TWCA purposes. Therefore, Rios's claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision.

Summary JudgmentExclusive Remedy ProvisionWorkers' Compensation ActBorrowed Servant DoctrineEmployment StatusAuthentication of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeRight of ControlTemporary Employment Agency
References
23
Case No. 13-02-00531-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2005

Alcoa, Reynolds Metals Company, Ron Warpula and Paul Stanley Danser, Jr. v. Hydrochem Industrial Services, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a summary judgment in a third-party indemnity action. Appellants, ALCOA, Reynolds Metals Company, Ron Warpula, and Paul Stanley Danser, Jr., sought indemnity from Hydrochem Industrial Services, Inc., after a Hydrochem employee was injured on ALCOA's premises. The central issues revolved around the applicability and enforceability of a purchase order (PO 060972LQ) and its indemnity provisions. The court affirmed the denial of ALCOA's motion for partial summary judgment but reversed the granting of Hydrochem's motion for summary judgment, finding that the PO was the operative contract and that statutory bars (Statute of Frauds, Worker's Compensation Statute, Texas Oil-Field Anti-Indemnity Act) did not apply. However, the court found the indemnity provision lacked conspicuousness, creating a factual question regarding actual knowledge, and that the additional-insured provision was not a distinct obligation. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Contract LawIndemnity AgreementSummary Judgment AppealTexas Appellate CourtExpress Negligence RuleConspicuousness DoctrineActual Knowledge DefenseWorkers' Compensation ActTexas Oil-Field Anti-Indemnity ActStatute of Frauds
References
53
Case No. 13-20-00004-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Regina Kay Smith and Jeffrey Scott Grove, as Surviving Parents of Brittany Dawn Grove v. USI Industrial Services, Inc.

Regina Kay Smith and Jeffrey Scott Grove, parents of Brittany Dawn Grove, appealed a summary judgment granted to USI Industrial Services, Inc. The Groves brought claims against USI based on respondeat superior and non-employee mission liability after a fatal auto accident involving USI's former employees, Roberto Rodriguez and Alejandro Ayala, and Brittany Grove. The accident occurred while Rodriguez and Ayala were traveling home after being terminated from USI. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding Rodriguez's employment status with USI at the time of the accident. Additionally, the court found that USI did not control the manner or route of travel for the non-employees, thereby negating non-employee mission liability.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityNon-Employee Mission LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealEmployment TerminationCourse and Scope of EmploymentFatal Auto AccidentAffidavit EvidenceJudicial ReviewTexas Court of Appeals
References
24
Case No. 03-10-00709-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Green Tree Servicing, LLC, as Authorized Servicing Agent for Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation v. Travis County

Green Tree Servicing, LLC appealed a post-answer default judgment concerning ad valorem taxes on mobile homes. The original suit was filed by Travis County and other entities against Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation, later substituted with Green Tree. Green Tree failed to appear at trial, resulting in a default judgment. Green Tree filed a motion for new trial, asserting its failure to appear was due to an accident or mistake (attorney transition) and that it had a meritorious defense, arguing that as a repossessing lienholder and not an owner, it was not liable for the taxes under Texas Tax Code Ann. § 32.07. The appellate court applied the Craddock test and found that Green Tree satisfied all three elements. The court adopted the interpretation that a repossessing lienholder is not considered an 'owner' under the tax code. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Post-answer default judgmentAd valorem taxesMobile homesLienholder liabilityProperty ownershipMeritorious defenseCraddock testNew trialStatutory interpretationTexas Tax Code
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. ADJ1182220 (WCK 0044768) ADJ144318 (WCK 0044769)
Regular
Feb 27, 2009

RICHARD CRUZ vs. AMERICAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC., CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award to Richard Cruz. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who found that the applicant sustained a specific industrial spinal injury on December 16, 1997, and a cumulative trauma spinal injury through January 28, 1998, while employed by American Protective Services. The WCJ found the applicant credible and relied on the opinions of two medical evaluators, Dr. Brose and Dr. Lavorgna, who ultimately supported the finding of industrial injuries. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination and incorporated the WCJ's report, denying the defendant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedWCJ ReportCredibility FindingIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaSpine InjurySecurity GuardAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 12,596 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