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. 534936
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Mariela Holder (Holder (dec'd), Edward)

Claimant Mariela Holder appealed a decision denying workers' compensation death benefits for her husband, a house manager who died from COVID-19 in March 2020. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding, ruling that his death was not causally-related to employment due to insufficient evidence of COVID-19 prevalence in his workplace. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate specific exposure or an elevated risk of exposure constituting an extraordinary event in the work environment. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that the death did not arise out of and in the course of employment, distinguishing it from prior cases.

COVID-19 claimWorkers' Compensation LawDeath benefitsCausal relationshipEmployment exposureWorkplace riskSubstantial evidenceBurden of proofAppellate DivisionMemorandum and Order
References
14
Case No. 14-04-00181-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2004

Ricky Holder v. BMS Catastrophe, Inc.

Ricky Holder appeals from a summary judgment favoring BMS Catastrophe, Inc., on his negligence claim. Holder, an employee of Adecco working temporarily for BMS, was injured at Memorial Hermann Hospital. The trial court determined that Holder's lawsuit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act because BMS had provided workers' compensation insurance through its contract with Adecco. The appellate court affirmed this decision, upholding the precedent that a special employer is covered by the exclusive remedy provision if it paid for workers' compensation insurance through the general employer, even without being a direct policyholder or named insured.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy ProvisionSummary JudgmentBorrowed EmployeeSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerTexas LawNegligenceAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage
References
10
Case No. 14-96-00043-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1997

Holder v. Mellon Mortgage Co.

Angela N. Holder sued Mellon Mortgage Company and the City of Houston after being sexually assaulted by a Houston police officer in Mellon's unsecured parking garage. Holder alleged negligence per se, common law negligence, and gross negligence against Mellon, and negligent supervision against the City. The trial court granted summary judgment for Mellon and dismissed claims against the City. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of claims against the City under the Texas Tort Claims Act and the summary judgment on the negligence per se claim against Mellon. However, it reversed and remanded the common law negligence, gross negligence, and loss of consortium claims against Mellon, finding unresolved fact issues regarding duty, foreseeability of criminal acts, and causation. The court also ruled that the exclusion of Holder's expert affidavit was an abuse of discretion.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySexual AssaultForeseeabilitySummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityCity OrdinanceParking Garage
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Havas v. Victory Paper Stock Co.

This appeal concerns Leslie Havas, an employee of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company, who was injured while manually loading heavy waste paper bales onto a Victory Paper Stock Company truck. The accident occurred due to an unsecured, improvised ramp after the hydraulic lift was out of service. Havas sued Victory, who then brought Morgan in as a third-party defendant. A jury found both liable, apportioning fault equally. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding Victory owed no duty and committed no proximate negligence. This court, in an opinion by Judge Fuchsberg, reverses the Appellate Division's order, asserting that the trial judge properly submitted the case to the jury. The decision emphasizes the foreseeability of the accident and the commingled efforts of both companies' employees, which established a mutual duty of care. The case is remitted to the Appellate Division for a review of the facts.

NegligenceForeseeabilityDuty of CareJoint EffortsContributory NegligenceJury RoleAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryLoading AccidentThird-Party Liability
References
8
Case No. 2015-02-0462
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2018

Lurz, Sally A. v. International Paper Company

The employee, Sally A. Lurz, sustained a right shoulder and knee injury after a fall at International Paper Company. The employer initially denied the claim, presenting video evidence suggesting a pre-existing injury, but the authorized treating physician, Dr. Brian Holloway, ultimately opined that the work accident was primarily responsible for the shoulder injury. The trial court found the claim compensable, awarding temporary and permanent disability benefits, and medical benefits, prompting an appeal from the employer. On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Dr. Holloway's "more likely than not" medical causation opinion was sufficient and deferring to the trial court's credibility findings regarding the employee. The Board also clarified that the employer's "motion for directed verdict" should have been treated as a motion for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41.02.

Shoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearMedical CausationVideo EvidenceCredibility FindingInvoluntary DismissalRule 41.02Permanent Medical ImpairmentAppellate ReviewTrial Court Affirmation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2005

Evans v. P.C.I. Paper Conversions, Inc.

Plaintiff, who was employed by Contemporary Personnel Staffing, Inc. and placed at P.C.I. Paper Conversions, Inc. (PCI), sustained injuries while operating an offset machine. She subsequently initiated a negligence and products liability action against PCI. PCI sought summary judgment, contending that the plaintiff was its special employee, thereby barring the action under Workers’ Compensation Law §§11 and 29. The Supreme Court denied this motion, ruling that there was a triable issue of fact concerning an agreement between Contemporary Personnel Staffing, Inc. and PCI that might have restricted PCI from employing the plaintiff in that capacity. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no error in the lower court's conclusion.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProducts LiabilityWorkers Compensation LawSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityTriable Issue of FactControl over Work
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schmitz v. St. Regis Paper Co.

Plaintiff Kathleen M. Schmitz, having been reinstated to a new position following a successful Title VII employment discrimination suit against St. Regis Paper Company (now Champion International Corporation), filed a motion for contempt. She alleged that the new role was not comparable to her previous marketing manager position. The District Court denied her motion, ruling that her claim was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches due to an unreasonable delay in filing the motion after becoming aware of her concerns. Additionally, the court found that Schmitz failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that Champion did not comply with the reinstatement order, determining the new position was sufficiently comparable regarding pay, title, and duties.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Reinstatement OrderMotion for ContemptEquitable Doctrine of LachesComparable Employment PositionJob ResponsibilitiesSuccessor CorporationMerger Impact
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Bosworth

Miss Carrie Bosworth sued Continental Paper Bag Company for the loss of an eye due to a hot metal piece from a saw machine. The core issue was the bag company's negligence in providing an unsafe working environment and defective machinery, even though Bosworth was found to be an employee of an independent contractor, W. H. Devers. The jury found the bag company negligent, leading to an $8,000 judgment for Bosworth. The bag company sought indemnity from Western Indemnity Company and Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, who were impleaded. The appellate court affirmed the judgment against the bag company, citing exceptions to the general rule regarding independent contractors when the original employer furnishes unsafe premises or inherently dangerous equipment. It also affirmed the conditional indemnity judgment against Fidelity & Casualty Company and attorney's fees against both insurers for breaching their duty to defend.

NegligenceIndustrial AccidentIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityUnsafe MachineryDuty of CareIndemnity InsuranceEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryVision Loss
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowaters Southern Paper Corp. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

This case involves a petition by Bowaters Southern Paper Corporation to set aside a demand for access to evidence by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and a cross-petition by the EEOC to enforce its demand. The dispute arose after a Commissioner's charge alleging unlawful employment practices against Bowaters was filed, leading to an EEOC investigation and subsequently a demand for extensive personnel records. Bowaters contended the demand was invalid because the underlying charge failed to "set forth the facts upon which it is based" as required by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court found that the Commissioner's charge, which merely listed general discriminatory practices without supporting facts, was legally insufficient to invoke the Commission's investigative jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court denied the EEOC's motion for enforcement and set aside the demand for access to evidence, concluding that a valid charge is a jurisdictional prerequisite for an investigation.

Equal Employment OpportunityCivil Rights Act of 1964Administrative LawInvestigative AuthorityJudicial ReviewSufficiency of ChargeDemand for EvidenceUnlawful Employment PracticesRacial DiscriminationJurisdictional Prerequisite
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1958

West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. A. D. Lewis

The case involves an interpleader action brought by West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company concerning union dues collected from its employees. Rival claims for these funds were made by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and an "Organizing Committee" formed by disaffiliating members of Local 12915. The core dispute revolved around the legitimacy of the disaffiliation and the validity of District 50's claim to the local's assets and checked-off dues. The court ultimately ruled in favor of District 50 and the temporary administrator of Local 12915, upholding the existing collective bargaining agreement and union constitution. The cross-claim by the "Organizing Committee" was dismissed, and the plaintiff was discharged from liability.

InterpleaderUnion Dues DisputeLabor Union DisaffiliationCollective BargainingProperty Rights of UnionsTemporary AdministrationNational Labor Relations BoardContract FrustrationDue ProcessTrade Union Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 225 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