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. 13-05-055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Scott Cerre v. Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP

Scott Cerre, an employee of Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP, was injured on the job and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He was later terminated under Odfjell's absence-control policy after taking a six-month leave of absence. Cerre sued Odfjell, alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Odfjell. On appeal, Cerre contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both his discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Odfjell successfully negated elements of the discrimination claim and that Cerre's termination was due to a uniformly enforced absence-control policy, not retaliation.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCausal ConnectionHarassment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fort Worth Transportation Authority v. Thomas

Ricky C. Thomas, a bus driver for Fort Worth Transportation Authority (FWTA) and McDonald Transit, Inc., was terminated in August 2002 after injuring his back and taking FMLA leave followed by sick leave. Appellants cited a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) provision allowing termination for absences exceeding one year, excluding military leave. Thomas filed a grievance and then a lawsuit, arguing that FMLA leave should not count as an absence based on the Operator Handbook, which defined "absence" and explicitly excluded FMLA leave. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Thomas, concluding that his discharge was not subject to arbitration under the CBA's management rights clause. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the Operator Handbook's definition of "absence," which excludes FMLA leave, must be considered when interpreting the CBA. Consequently, Thomas was "absent" for less than one year when terminated, leading to a breach of contract by the appellants.

Breach of ContractCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Employee TerminationGrievance ProcedureArbitration ClauseOperator HandbookAbsenteeism PolicyContract InterpretationSummary Judgment
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Johnson

This case involves an appeal by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) of an adverse judgment in a suit brought by former employee Charles Johnson. Johnson alleged he was discharged from his bus driver position in violation of Tex. Lab.Code ANN. § 451.001 after filing a worker's compensation claim. DART had policies regarding extended absence from work and an unwritten policy to retain or reinstate employees who produced a full work release during the grievance process. Johnson was terminated after 623 days of absence and presented a full work release at a rescheduled Trial Board hearing, which subsequently denied his grievance because the release was not provided on the originally scheduled hearing date. The trial court found that Johnson was discriminated against. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no evidence to establish a necessary causal connection between Johnson's worker's compensation claim and his discharge, as the circumstantial evidence was equally consistent with the Trial Board's decision regarding the medical release policy.

Worker's Compensation ClaimWrongful TerminationCausal ConnectionCircumstantial EvidenceGrievance ProcedureMedical Release PolicyEmployer PolicyTrial Board DecisionAppealTexas Labor Code
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. ADJ10606418, ADJ10606429
Regular
Jan 03, 2020

Berta Jimenez (Ramirez) vs. EMPLOYBRIDGE, LLC dba SELECT FAMILY OF STAFFING COMPANIES, XL GROUP, administered by CORVEL CORPORATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a prior Joint Findings and Award. The WCAB found that the lien claimant was not afforded due process as its witness failed to appear at two trials, but the reasons for his absence were not adequately adjudicated. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial judge for further proceedings to determine if there was good cause for the witness's absence. This decision does not rule on the validity of the lien or the witness's reasons for absence, only on the prior award of costs to the defendant.

MPNFunctional Capacity EvaluationLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardWCJDue processWCAB Rule 10842Substantial evidenceCompromise and Release
References
4
Case No. 01-03-00753-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

Joseph Earl Cavender v. Houston Distributing Co., Inc.

Joseph Earl Cavender sued Houston Distributing Company, Inc. for wrongful termination, alleging a violation of Texas Labor Code section 451.001 after his employment was terminated due to an absence exceeding 180 consecutive days while on workers' compensation leave. A jury ruled in favor of Houston Distributing, and the trial court issued a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, Cavender contended his termination violated the Texas Labor Code as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing Texas Supreme Court precedent that uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge, even when the absence is related to a workers' compensation claim.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAbsence Control PolicyTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewEmployment LawJury VerdictAffirmed JudgmentEmployer Policy
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder Communications v. Magana

The appellees sued their former employer, Snyder Communications, L.P., for breach of contract and fraud, alleging a failure to pay commissions and bonuses as per employment contracts. The trial court certified the case as a class action, and Snyder appealed the certification order and adopted trial plan. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in either the certification or the trial plan. The court concluded that common issues predominated, the class action was a superior method for resolution, and the class representatives and counsel were adequate. The appellate court also addressed Snyder's arguments regarding the evidence considered by the trial court and the trial plan's ability to address defenses.

Class Action CertificationEmployment Contract DisputesBreach of ContractCommon Law FraudInterlocutory AppealsAppellate Review StandardsAbuse of Discretion StandardClass Action CommonalityClass Action PredominanceAdequacy of Class Representation
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deblo, Inc. v. State

This case is an appeal from a trial court order granting a temporary injunction against appellants for maintaining a public nuisance at 166 West Mount Houston, Harris County, Texas. The trial court found appellants were using the property for prostitution and ordered it closed or a $5,000 bond posted. Appellants argued that padlocking premises is only permissible after a trial on the merits, not a temporary order. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court highlighted that an alternative (posting a bond) was offered and the injunction only prevented illegal use, not legitimate use of the property. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact regarding the property being used for prostitution.

Nuisance AbatementTemporary InjunctionPublic NuisanceProstitutionAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTrial Court OrderPadlocking OrderBond RequirementFactual Sufficiency
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. 98-03885
Regular Panel Decision

Authorlee v. Tuboscope Vetco International, Inc.

The appellants, who were settling plaintiffs in a mass tort silicosis case, sought to overturn the trial court's denial of their motion for new trial. They argued that their agreed judgment was void due to an undisclosed aggregate settlement and alleged fraud by their trial lawyers and the appellees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court concluded that there was no actual fraud by the appellees as the appellants admitted a lack of reliance. Additionally, the court found no conspiracy to commit fraud in the litigation context. Finally, the court determined that the settlements were not aggregate settlements due to individual negotiations and offers, thus upholding the validity of the agreed judgment.

Aggregate SettlementFraud AllegationsMotion for New TrialAppellate ReviewProfessional MisconductMass Tort LitigationSilicosis ClaimsSettlement AgreementsConspiracyReliance
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 15,085 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