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. 2-06-016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2007

Shioleno Industries, Inc. AND Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington v. Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC D/B/A Medical Center of Arlington AND Shioleno Industries, Inc.

Shioleno Industries, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Columbia Medical Center of Arlington Subsidiary, L.P. and Columbia North Texas Subsidiary, GP, LLC d/b/a Medical Center of Arlington (the Hospital). The case originated from the Hospital's alleged failure to disclose an employee's positive drug and alcohol test results to Shioleno after an on-the-job injury. Shioleno contended that this omission led to increased workers' compensation premiums and expenses in unemployment benefit disputes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Shioleno failed to provide a valid authorization for the disclosure of medical information. Consequently, the Hospital had no legal duty to disclose the results and could not be held liable for negligence, breach of contract, or Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations.

Summary JudgmentMedical RecordsDisclosure AuthorizationHealth & Safety CodeNegligenceBreach of ContractDTPADrug TestingAlcohol TestingEmployer Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKelvy v. Columbia Medical Center of McKinney Subsidiary, L.P.

Jeannie McKelvy, an employee of Columbia Medical Center of McKinney Subsidiary, L.P., d/b/a McKinney Medical Center (the Hospital), sustained injuries from a slip and fall at work due to leaking lab equipment. She filed a negligence claim against the Hospital, which is a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance. The Hospital moved to dismiss her claims under the Texas Medical Liability Act (Chapter 74) for failure to file an expert report, arguing her claims were health care liability claims. The trial court granted the Hospital's motion. On appeal, McKelvy argued her claims were ordinary negligence claims, not subject to Chapter 74. The appellate court reviewed the definition of a 'health care liability claim' under section 74.001(a)(13) of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The court concluded that McKelvy's claims, stemming from a hazardous floor caused by leaking lab equipment, did not have an indirect relationship to the provision of health care and did not involve a patient-physician relationship. Therefore, her claims were not health care liability claims, and the trial court erred in dismissing her case. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings.

References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1987

Reska v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee of Bethlehem Steel, initiated an action to recover reduced pension benefits. His monthly pension was decreased after the defendants, Bethlehem Steel Corporation and Subsidiary Companies, offset a Workers' Compensation Board award for a 20% partial hearing loss against his pension. The plaintiff argued this reduction violated the company's Plan provisions and ERISA's non-forfeiture clause. The court, however, found that the plaintiff had exhausted his administrative remedies and that the Plan's language allowed for such offsets for partial loss, explicitly excepting only total loss of a bodily member. Citing Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., the court concluded that ERISA permits such offsets, even for workers' compensation awards not solely for wage replacement, as it aligns with Congress's intent to provide cost-cutting avenues for employers. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the complaint.

Pension BenefitsERISAWorkers' Compensation OffsetNon-forfeiture ProvisionSummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesDisability PaymentsBethlehem Steel Pension PlanPartial Hearing LossEmployee Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

STUTIS v. De Dietrich Group

This case involves Gulf War Veterans suing Buchi Labortechnik AG and De Dietrich Process Systems, S.A., alleging injuries from chemical weapons supplied to Iraq. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs cross-moved for jurisdictional discovery and leave to amend their complaint to establish jurisdiction through the defendants' U.S. subsidiaries. The court examined New York law regarding general jurisdiction, specifically the 'agent' and 'mere department' theories for subsidiary liability. Finding insufficient factual allegations to establish jurisdiction over the foreign parent corporations or their subsidiaries, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs' requests.

Personal JurisdictionForeign CorporationSubsidiary LiabilityAgent TheoryMere Department TestRule 12(b)(2)Rule 15(a)Rule 4(k)(2)New York Civil Practice Law and RulesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Finister v. Humboldt General Hospital, Inc.

This case involves an interlocutory appeal to determine whether Humboldt General Hospital, Inc., a subsidiary of the Jackson-Madison County General Hospital District, is exempt from the Workers’ Compensation Act pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-106(5). Plaintiff Mary Finister filed suit seeking workers’ compensation benefits for a work-related back injury sustained while employed by Humboldt General. The hospital moved for summary judgment, claiming exemption as a subsidiary of an exempt quasi-municipal corporation. The Chancellor denied the motion, but this Court reversed, holding that the Hospital District is an exempt quasi-municipal corporation and that Humboldt General, as its subsidiary, is also exempt from the Workers’ Compensation Act, thus granting summary judgment to the defendant.

Workers' Compensation ExemptionQuasi-Municipal CorporationHospital DistrictSubsidiary EntityGovernmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealStatutory InterpretationPublic Benefit CorporationTennessee Law
References
6
Case No. 00 Civ. 3374
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between Promotora De Navegacion, S.A. & Sea Containers, Ltd.

Petitioner Promotora de Navegación, S.A. moved to confirm an arbitration award against Sea Containers Ltd. (SCL) and its subsidiaries, Strider 9 Ltd. and Strider 10 Ltd., in the Southern District of New York. The award of nearly $7 million, including consequential damages, stemmed from a dispute over time charters. SCL argued it was not a party to the arbitration agreement, while the Strider Subsidiaries challenged the foreseeability of the consequential damages. The district court, presided over by Judge Lynch, granted SCL's motion to vacate the award against it, finding no clear and unambiguous intent by SCL to arbitrate. However, the court denied the Strider Subsidiaries' motion, affirming the arbitrators' finding on foreseeability. Consequently, the arbitration award was confirmed against Strider 9 Ltd. and Strider 10 Ltd., but vacated against Sea Containers Ltd.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationMaritime ArbitrationContract DisputeCorporate Alter EgoSubsidiary LiabilityForeseeable DamagesFederal Arbitration ActCharter Party AgreementCommercial ShippingJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jewish National Workers Alliance of America v. Merchants Bank of New York

The plaintiff sued to recover an alleged balance due on a $10,000 deposit made with the defendant bank. The defendant asserted a counterclaim and defenses, arguing that the plaintiff's subsidiary, Jewish National Workers Alliance Institute, Inc., was merely a corporate facade and its debt to the bank should be attributed to the plaintiff, with the deposit serving as security for a $10,000 loan to the subsidiary. The court found the first defense and counterclaim insufficient, stating it lacked grounds to pierce the corporate veil, citing prior case law such as Quaid v. Ratkowsky. The second defense, alleging fraudulent representations regarding the subsidiary's solvency and the security deposit, was also deemed insufficient due to a lack of demonstrable fraud and damages. Consequently, the court reversed the appealed order and granted the motion to strike both the first defense and counterclaim and the second defense.

Corporate VeilSubsidiary CompanyFraud AllegationsCounterclaim SufficiencyDefense SufficiencyPromissory StatementsSecurity DepositLoan AgreementsAppellate ReviewMotion Practice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coastal Corp. v. Torres

This personal injury case stems from a refinery explosion in May 1999, which caused serious injuries to employees Daniel Torres, William Bourland, and David Natividad. The appellees sued the parent company, The Coastal Corporation (Coastal), asserting a negligence claim based on Coastal's alleged control over its subsidiary's (Coastal Refining & Marketing, Inc.) budget and expenditures, specifically for safety maintenance. A jury found Coastal negligent and awarded substantial actual damages. On appeal, the court examined whether Texas law recognizes a cause of action against a parent company for negligent control of its subsidiary's budget, an affirmative undertaking, or negligent activity under these circumstances. Ultimately, the court concluded that existing Texas law does not impose liability on a parent company for failing to approve budgets for its subsidiaries to ensure premises defects are repaired, and therefore reversed and rendered the trial court's judgment.

Personal InjuryRefinery ExplosionCorporate NegligenceParent Company LiabilitySubsidiary LiabilityNegligent ControlBudgetary ControlAffirmative ConductUndertaking LiabilityNegligent Activity
References
26
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01309 [180 AD3d 607]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2020

Rodriguez v. Dairyland HP, LLC

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The court found that the plaintiff's claims against Dairyland HP, LLC were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. This was based on the determination that Dairyland HP, LLC was the alter ego of the plaintiff's employers, Chef's Warehouse (CW) or Dairyland USA Corp. (USA). Evidence showed that defendant and USA were wholly-owned subsidiaries of CW, shared a common CEO, administrative, financial, and insurance resources, and CW paid the workers' compensation premiums covering all subsidiaries.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawAlter Ego DoctrineAppellate DivisionCorporate SubsidiariesCommon OwnershipInsurance ResourcesComplaint DismissalIntercorporate RelationshipsFirst Department
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. National Convenience Stores, Inc.

Justice DUNCAN dissents, arguing that the Exxon "right to control safety" test is inapplicable because Stop N Go, the defendant, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of NCS, Brooks' employer. He contends that a judgment against Stop N Go would indirectly negate the exclusive remedy bar provided by the Workers' Compensation Act for NCS. Furthermore, DUNCAN asserts that Rule 166a(c) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure should not mandate a remand when a dispositive and incontrovertible fact, such as the subsidiary relationship, has been conclusively established by the summary judgment proof, as a remand would serve no practical purpose and only incur additional costs and delay.

Workers' Compensation ActWholly-owned subsidiaryCorporate veilExclusive remedy barSummary judgmentAppellate procedureRight to controlAgency relationshipTexas lawDissenting opinion
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 138 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