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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kee

Tan-ja Kee was fired by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in response to filing and settling a workers' compensation claim. Kee sued Wal-Mart for discriminatory firing under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307c, seeking actual and exemplary damages. A jury awarded Kee $4,500 in actual damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages, finding Wal-Mart acted with malice. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the recoverability of exemplary damages and the sufficiency of evidence for malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing precedent that exemplary damages are recoverable and concluding that the jury's finding of malice and the damage award were supported by sufficient evidence and not excessive.

discriminatory firingworkers' compensationexemplary damagesmaliceTexas lawretaliatory dischargeemployee rightsemployer liabilityjury verdictappellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Northwest Medical Center Survivor, Inc. v. King

This case involves an appeal by Houston Northwest Medical Center Survivor, Inc. (employer) against a jury verdict awarding Betty McInturff King (employee) $20,000 in exemplary damages for wrongful discharge under the Workers’ Compensation Act. King had alleged wrongful discharge or discrimination in violation of articles 8307c sections (1) and (2). The jury found that Houston Northwest did not violate article 8307c, section I, but did find that Houston Northwest acted willfully and maliciously, leading to the exemplary damages award. The appellate court examined whether exemplary damages could be awarded without actual damages in a wrongful discharge case, distinguishing it from cases where actual damages are inherently not recoverable. The court concluded that actual damages must precede exemplary damages in such a suit. Since the jury did not find liability for actual damages, the issues regarding willful and malicious conduct and exemplary damages were deemed immaterial. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment for Houston Northwest.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DischargeExemplary DamagesActual DamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewTexas LawArticle 8307cArticle 8306Gross Negligence
References
4
Case No. 13-04-358-CV, 13-04-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Montemayor v. Ortiz

This consolidated appeal involves a declaratory judgment action and counterclaims for damages. Appellants G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham Jr. sought to collect a 1990 judgment against Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez and Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada by claiming Becky Ortiz's business, Schor's, was community property subject to levy. They obtained an ex parte receivership, prompting Ortiz to file counterclaims for wrongful conduct including abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgments for Ortiz, ruling the 1990 debt was contractual and Schor's was her special community property, not liable for Celada's debt. A jury awarded Ortiz actual and punitive damages on her counterclaims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgments in favor of Ortiz, but reversed and rendered the judgment for damages, finding no legal sufficiency of evidence for any of Ortiz's tort claims, thereby also precluding punitive damages and mental anguish awards.

Declaratory JudgmentEx Parte ReceivershipCommunity PropertySpecial Community PropertyTortious ConductAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eastman v. Baker Recovery Services (In Re Eastman)

Shane E. Eastman, a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor, initiated an adversary proceeding against Baker Recovery Services and the Law Offices of Juana Trejo. He sought a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and damages, alleging that the defendants violated his discharge injunction, the FDCPA, TDCA, DTPA, and committed intentional infliction of emotional distress by attempting to collect a discharged debt. The court ruled that the defendants indeed violated the Bankruptcy Code's discharge injunction, the FDCPA, and the TDCA, particularly through their actions in filing a lawsuit in California. Consequently, the court granted Eastman's request for an injunction, awarded statutory damages of $1,000, and ordered the defendants to pay attorney's fees and costs. However, Eastman's claims for actual damages were denied due to insufficient proof, and his DTPA and tort claims were dismissed, the former for lack of standing and the latter for failing to meet the required intent threshold.

Bankruptcy DischargeDebt CollectionFDCPA ViolationTDCA ViolationDischarge InjunctionStatutory DamagesAttorneys' FeesDeclaratory JudgmentDefault JudgmentAdversary Proceeding
References
39
Case No. 02-09-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

Catherine Wilson and William D. Wilson v. Siavash Tavakoli, D.D.S.

Catherine and William D. Wilson appealed a take-nothing judgment from the trial court concerning their claims against former dentist Siavash Tavakoli. A jury had found Tavakoli committed fraud against Catherine and awarded $3,000 in exemplary damages, but no question on actual damages for fraud was submitted or found. The trial court subsequently granted Tavakoli’s motion for a take-nothing judgment, asserting that an award of actual damages is required to support exemplary damages under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.004. On appeal, the Wilsons contended the trial court erred by limiting the jury's consideration of fraud and by rendering the take-nothing judgment. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that the Wilsons failed to demonstrate harm from the limited fraud question and that, without an award of actual damages, the exemplary damages could not be sustained.

Dental MalpracticeFraudExemplary DamagesActual DamagesTake-Nothing JudgmentJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewHarmless ErrorTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doubleday & Co., Inc. v. Rogers

This libel suit, brought by Dr. N. Jay Rogers against Harvey Katz and Doubleday & Co., Inc., stemmed from a false statement in Katz's book published by Doubleday. Although a jury found malice, it awarded no actual damages but assessed $2,500,000 in exemplary damages. The trial court's take-nothing judgment was reversed by the court of appeals, which then awarded the exemplary damages. However, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that exemplary damages require actual damages under Texas law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court independently reviewed the record and found no clear and convincing evidence that Doubleday acted with actual malice.

LibelDefamationExemplary DamagesActual DamagesActual MalicePublic OfficialFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPublishing LawTexas Supreme Court
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First National Bank of Missouri City v. Gittelman

This case concerns a dispute over a loan's collateral, a Mazda car, between Mrs. Gittelman and First National Bank of Missouri City, with her daughter Lisa Fike intervening. The car, used by Fike, caught fire, and the bank subsequently sold it for $600 without Gittelman's undisputed authorization, crediting her account only $181 much later. The trial court found the bank liable for conversion, breach of contract, and UCC violations, awarding actual and exemplary damages, plus attorney's fees, to Gittelman and Fike. The appellate court affirmed the findings of conversion, breach of contract, and UCC violation. It modified Gittelman's actual damages to $1500 (for the car's value), reallocating mental anguish to exemplary damages. Fike's damages were entirely deleted as she was deemed not entitled to damages for the car's value or loss of use, and mental anguish was not an actual damage for a bailee. The judgment was affirmed as modified, and the case was remanded for the calculation of post-judgment interest owed to the bank on the original note.

ConversionBreach of ContractExemplary DamagesActual DamagesAttorney's FeesGood Faith and Fair DealingUniform Commercial CodeSecured TransactionsMental AnguishBailment
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fuller v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois

Chief Justice (Retired) Nye dissents from the majority's decision allowing Regina Fuller to recover exemplary damages for wrongful death. The dissent argues that the Texas Constitution does not create an independent cause of action for exemplary damages, but rather permits their recovery only when actual damages are available. Citing Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat. art. 8306, § 3(e), Nye explains that the decedent, Mr. Fuller, would have been immune from suing Travelers Indemnity or Travelers Insurance for actual damages, thereby precluding Regina Fuller's derivative claim for both actual and exemplary damages. Additionally, Mr. Fuller's waiver of his rights under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act further negates any derivative action. Thus, the dissenting judge concludes that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed.

wrongful deathexemplary damagesconstitutional lawstatutory interpretationworkers' compensationimmunityderivative claimsgross negligenceactual damagesTexas law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commonwealth Lloyd's Insurance Co. v. Thomas

This opinion addresses a motion for rehearing in a case where Commonwealth Lloyd's Insurance Company appealed a judgment for Roy E. and Margie Thomas. The Thomases had sued Commonwealth for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing after their home was destroyed by fire and Commonwealth denied their claim based on suspected arson and insufficient proofs of loss. A Dallas County jury found for the Thomases, awarding actual and exemplary damages, plus prejudgment interest. The appellate court sustained Commonwealth's complaint regarding the calculation of prejudgment interest, reversing that portion and remanding it for recomputation from November 4, 1981, instead of May 4, 1981. In all other respects, including the findings of bad faith, actual damages (mental anguish, loss of credit), and exemplary damages, the trial court's judgment was affirmed. The court notably upheld the retroactive application of the Arnold ruling on bad faith claims and found the exemplary damages award, approximately three times the actual damages, did not violate due process.

Insurance LawBad Faith ClaimDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingArson InvestigationPrejudgment InterestExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesStatute of LimitationsRetroactive Application of LawSufficiency of Evidence
References
69
Showing 1-10 of 5,163 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