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. 13-10-00247-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2010

Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company and Cliff Welker v. Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales

This memorandum opinion from the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals addresses an appeal by Unit Texas Drilling, LLC, Unit Drilling Company, and Cliff Welker. They sought to reverse a trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration in a personal injury suit filed by Caesar Morales, Jr. and Rhonda Morales. The Moraleses' claims arose from Caesar's on-the-job injury while working for Unit Texas, a non-subscriber to the Texas Workers Compensation Act, and concerned a mandatory 'Occupational Injury Benefit Plan' with an arbitration clause. The appellate court found that the Federal Arbitration Act applied, the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable, and rejected the appellees' defenses, including arguments related to the McCarran-Ferguson Act, Texas Labor Code provisions, unconscionability, and failure of consideration. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Workers Compensation ActNon-subscriber EmployerMotion to Compel ArbitrationUnconscionability DefenseMcCarran-Ferguson ActIllusory PromiseContractual DisputesEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Essig v. United States

Plaintiffs Robert and Jacqueline Essig sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries Robert sustained in a bicycle-vehicle collision involving a government vehicle. The vehicle was driven by Special Agent Edward P. Hamill of the DEA, who was intoxicated after leaving his office bar but was still on duty, attempting to arrange an undercover meeting. The collision occurred while Hamill was commuting in a government-issued vehicle, authorized for official use and home-to-office travel. The Court found the United States vicariously liable to the plaintiffs, concluding that Hamill was acting within the scope of his employment and using the vehicle with express permission. This liability was established under both New York's doctrine of respondeat superior and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1), with a trial on damages still pending.

Federal Tort Claims ActVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorVehicle and Traffic LawGovernment LiabilityDEA AgentDrunk DrivingBicycle AccidentCommuting
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownv. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

In this action, the plaintiffs sought to recover attorney's fees and costs from the defendant, United States Fid. and Guar. Ins. Co., incurred in defending a prior Federal court action initiated by the defendant. This Federal action was itself a consequence of the defendant's earlier breach of its duty to defend the plaintiffs in a negligence suit. Special Term denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, prompting the current appeal. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, reiterating that expenses incurred in defending a declaratory judgment action brought due to an insurer's breach of the duty to defend are recoverable. The court distinguished this situation from prosecuting claims to establish coverage, emphasizing that the plaintiffs were defending their interests.

Attorney's FeesDeclaratory JudgmentDuty to DefendInsurance CoverageBreach of ContractIndemnificationAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissInsurer ObligationCosts
References
5
Case No. 1:96-CV-337
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 1998

Saint Paul Fire & Marine Insurance v. United States

Seaman Christopher Gray sustained injuries at the Chickamauga Lock and Dam. Serodino, Inc., Gray's employer, and its insurer, Saint Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, initiated a lawsuit against the United States of America and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, seeking contribution or indemnity related to Gray's injuries. The plaintiffs asserted admiralty jurisdiction over their claims. The United States filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, contending that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the administrative filing requirement of the Admiralty Extension Act and that Gray's underlying admiralty claim against Serodino did not confer admiralty jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims against the United States. Consequently, the court granted the United States's Motion for Summary Judgment, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Admiralty jurisdictionSovereign immunitySuits in Admiralty ActAdmiralty Extension ActContributionIndemnificationSummary judgmentJones ActMaritime lawNavigable waters
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Deusen v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Petitioners Duane and Barbara Van Deusen appealed the denial of their request for apportionment of attorney's fees against United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&G). USF&G was the workers' compensation and liability insurer for Duane's employer, Goettle, and its lien was satisfied from the Van Deusens' third-party award for personal injuries. Special Term had denied the apportionment based on the precedent set in *France v Abstract Tit. Div. of Tit. Guar. Co.*, which held that when the lienor is also the employer's liability insurer, the attorney's efforts are considered adverse, extinguishing the contribution obligation. This court reconsidered the *France* ruling, deeming it unfair to injured plaintiffs and contrary to the legislative intent behind the Workers' Compensation Law amendment regarding lienor contribution to litigation costs. The court found no legal or logical reason to differentiate an injured employee's recovery based on whether the employer's compensation and liability insurance were with one or two carriers. Consequently, the court reversed the Special Term's order and remitted the matter for further proceedings, instructing that litigation costs be calculated based on the direct benefit the lienor received from the recovery through lien recoupment, with an additional consideration for any wrongfully withheld compensation benefits.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney's Fees ApportionmentInsurance LienThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityIndemnificationContributionDole-Dow DoctrineAppellate ReviewLegal Precedent Reconsideration
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olveda v. United States

Plaintiff Mr. Olveda filed a Federal Tort Claim Action against the United States after being exposed to plutonium while employed by Dow Chemical Company, an independent contractor managing the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity as a 'statutory employer' under Colorado law. The court found that under Colorado Revised Statute § 8-48-101, the United States, by ensuring workmen's compensation insurance for Dow's employees (as an allowable cost under its contract with Dow), qualified as a statutory employer. This status grants immunity from common law tort suits. Citing various Colorado and federal precedents, the court affirmed that the 'statutory employer' doctrine applies to the United States in the same manner as a private individual. Therefore, Mr. Olveda is limited to his workmen's compensation claim, and the court granted summary judgment to the United States.

Federal Tort Claims ActStatutory EmployerWorkers' CompensationRadiation ExposurePlutonium ContaminationSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorColorado Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richardson v. United Employers Casualty Co.

This is an appeal in a compensation insurance case involving employee Elton Richardson (appellant) and United Employers Casualty Company (appellee). Richardson sustained accidental injuries on August 10, 1939, while employed by Ernest L. Mays, and claimed total and permanent incapacity. After the Industrial Accident Board made a final award, Richardson filed suit in the district court to set aside the award and recover compensation. The case was tried to a jury, which awarded Richardson $1,400 for the loss of the use of an arm. The appellate court found the jury's answers to special issues to be confused, inconsistent, and unsatisfactory, particularly regarding findings on total incapacity and the average weekly wage. Due to these inconsistencies and apparent confusion, the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationJury ConfusionInconsistent VerdictAppellate ReviewRemand for New TrialTotal IncapacityLoss of Use of LimbAverage Weekly WageTexas LawIndustrial Accident Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Totten v. United States

This is a wrongful death action brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The plaintiff's husband, an Aerojet employee, died in a rocket propellant fire during a post-accident clean-up operation at the United States Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center. The United States moved for summary judgment, contending it could not be held liable for the negligence of its independent contractor Aerojet and that it was protected by the discretionary function exception of 28 U.S.C. § 2680(a). The Court determined that Air Force personnel, who approved a clean-up plan with a deficient hazard analysis, were performing a discretionary function. Citing Supreme Court precedents like Dalehite and Varig Airlines, the Court ruled that Section 2680(a) protects the United States from liability even if negligence could be proved. Therefore, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed.

Wrongful DeathFederal Tort Claims ActDiscretionary Function ExceptionSummary JudgmentGovernment LiabilityIndependent ContractorMilitary StandardsHazard AnalysisRocket Propellant FireTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Blasio v. United States

This action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act by Jean and Clifton DeBlasio against the United States for personal injuries sustained by Jean at the Gateway Sports Center. The plaintiffs alleged negligence due to protruding cement nodules on a sidewalk. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting it could not be sued for the acts or omissions of its independent contractors. The court found that Shields and Dean Concessions, Inc., which operated the Sports Center, was an independent contractor and that the government lacked day-to-day supervisory control. Consequently, the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply, and the motion for summary judgment was granted, finding the United States immune from suit.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryNegligenceGovernment LiabilityConcessionaireNational Park ServiceControl Test
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,373 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