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

Valencia v. Freeland & Lemm Construction Co.

This case addresses the interpretation of the "actual intent" exception to the exclusive remedy provision of Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Law. The plaintiff, as next friend of Francisco Valencia, appealed the dismissal of tort claims against Freeland and Lemm Construction Company, whose alleged safety violations led to Valencia's death in a trench collapse. The plaintiff argued that an employer's conduct "substantially certain" to cause injury or death should fall under the intentional tort exception. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the exception strictly requires proof of "actual intent" to injure the employee, distinguishing it from conduct that is merely grossly or criminally negligent or "substantially certain" to cause harm. Consequently, workers' compensation remains the exclusive remedy in the absence of such actual intent.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive Remedy ProvisionIntentional Tort ExceptionActual IntentSubstantially Certain ConductEmployer LiabilityWorkplace FatalityTrench CollapseSafety ViolationsStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06518 [210 AD3d 1240]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2022

Matter of Hoyt (Paul Revere Life Ins. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Paul Revere Life Insurance Company appealed decisions by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found the company liable for unemployment insurance contributions for claimant William K. Hoyt Jr. and others. The Board determined that Paul Revere's contract with the claimant did not satisfy all seven requirements of Labor Law § 511 (21) and that the parties' conduct was inconsistent with the statutory exclusion, thus establishing an employment relationship under the common-law test. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that both the written contract and the parties' actual conduct must conform to the statutory provisions for an insurance agent's services to be excluded from the definition of employment. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's conclusion of an employment relationship, citing factors such as the claimant's work schedule, reporting requirements, and Paul Revere's training and oversight. The decision clarified that a mere 'verbatim inclusion or rote incantation' of the statutory provisions in a contract is insufficient if actual conduct contradicts them.

Unemployment InsuranceInsurance AgentsEmployment RelationshipCommon Law TestLabor Law § 511Statutory ExclusionAppellate ReviewUnemployment BenefitsInsurance Sales IndustryContractual Provisions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2007

In Re Adelphia Communications Corp.

The case concerns Debtor Adelphia Communications Corp.'s objection to a $44.7 million claim by Lucent Technologies, Inc. Lucent sought to hold Adelphia liable for debts of Devon Mobile Communications, L.P. under Delaware's Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, specifically Section 17-303, alleging de facto general partnership liability. Adelphia argued Lucent's actual knowledge of its limited partner status should defeat the claim. The Court ruled that Section 17-303(a) prioritizes the limited partner's conduct in determining a third party's reasonable belief, making the third party's actual knowledge of limited partner status irrelevant. Citing material factual disputes regarding Adelphia's conduct, the Court denied Adelphia's motion for summary judgment on Lucent's Section 17-303, alter ego, and other equitable claims, scheduling the Section 17-303 claim for the first stage of trial.

Limited Partnership LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionDelaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership ActSection 17-303De Facto General PartnerPartnership ControlVeil PiercingEquitable RemediesBreach of Contract ClaimBankruptcy Proceedings
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Apollo Paint & Body Shop

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of "possession" as it relates to mechanic's liens under Chapter 70, Subchapter A, of the Texas Property Code. Apollo Paint & Body Shop repaired Leonard Boedecker's Corvette but was not paid after Boedecker stopped payment on a check. Apollo subsequently conducted a foreclosure sale and obtained a new certificate of title without actually possessing the vehicle. Jay Thompson later purchased the Corvette from Boedecker, who was in actual possession of the vehicle at the time of sale. The trial court initially awarded Apollo title and possession, but the appellate court reversed, ruling that actual possession is a prerequisite for foreclosing a statutory worker's lien and that Thompson qualified as a bona fide purchaser. The court concluded that Apollo's lien rights were cut off by Thompson's bona fide purchase, emphasizing the necessity of actual possession for perfecting such a lien.

Mechanic's LienPossessory LienTexas Property CodeBona Fide PurchaserForeclosure SaleActual PossessionConstructive PossessionCertificate of Title ActWorkers' LienAutomobile
References
11
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. 01-14-0799-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2014

Barbara Regina Schlein v. Anthony Griffin

This legal brief pertains to an appeal and cross-appeal originating from a civil dispute in Galveston County, Texas. Anthony P. Griffin, as the original plaintiff, sued Barbara Regina Schlein for breach of a legal services contract, seeking unpaid attorney's fees and costs. Schlein filed counterclaims, including allegations of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unconscionable conduct under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). The jury found in favor of Griffin on the breach of contract, awarding him substantial damages and attorney's fees. Despite jury findings of unconscionable conduct by Griffin and an award of $5,000 in additional damages to Schlein, the trial court's final judgment denied Schlein any recovery on this specific claim, while affirming Griffin's awards. Griffin, as the cross-appellant, challenges the unconscionable conduct finding and the additional damages, asserting legal exemptions under the DTPA and the absence of actual damages.

Legal Services ContractBreach of ContractAttorney's FeesDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Unconscionable ConductProfessional Service ExemptionActual DamagesExemplary DamagesJury VerdictCross-Appeal
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2007

Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc.

Louis Vuitton Malletier initiated an action against Dooney & Bourke, Inc., alleging trademark infringement, dilution, and unfair competition under state and federal laws. The Court addressed two key legal questions: the necessity of proving willful deceit for profit recovery in federal trademark infringement claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and the requirement of showing actual damages for monetary relief in federal dilution claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c). The District Court affirmed both requirements, holding that a finding of the defendant's willful deceptiveness is a prerequisite for awarding profits in trademark infringement suits, thereby upholding the George Basch Co. v. Blue Coral, Inc. precedent. Additionally, the court ruled that the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (TDRA) is not retroactively applicable to monetary relief for dilution claims, necessitating proof of actual dilution for pre-TDRA conduct. Consequently, Louis Vuitton must establish willful deceit to recover Dooney & Bourke's profits and actual dilution to be entitled to monetary relief on its federal dilution claim.

Trademark InfringementTrademark DilutionUnfair CompetitionLanham ActWillful DeceptionProfit AwardsMonetary ReliefRetroactivityTrademark Dilution Revision ActFederal Law
References
27
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. ADJ10544667
Regular
Nov 15, 2019

NEREYDA VARGAS vs. WELLS FARGO BANK NORTH AMERICA, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision finding no industrial psychiatric injury. The Board found the original decision failed to conduct the multi-level analysis required by *Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.* concerning actual employment events and lawful, good faith personnel actions. The case is returned to the trial level for further development and analysis to determine if actual employment events predominated the injury and if any lawful personnel actions were a substantial cause. The Workers' Compensation Judge must specifically address all alleged events, medical evidence, and potential inconsistencies in the Qualified Medical Evaluator's reports.

psychiatric injurycumulative traumaRolda analysispredominant causelawful personnel actionnondiscriminatorygood faithactual events of employmentpredicate eventsmedical evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1996

Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of El Paso, Inc. v. Flores

George Flores sued his employer, Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of El Paso, Inc., alleging retaliatory termination after filing a workers' compensation claim, violating Texas Labor Code Section 451.001. A jury awarded Flores $21,000 in actual damages and $200,000 in exemplary damages. Burlington appealed the verdict, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the jury's award of actual damages, finding sufficient evidence for liability, lost wages, and mental anguish. However, the court reversed the award of punitive damages, concluding there was no evidence of willful or malicious conduct by Burlington.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory TerminationWrongful TerminationTexas Labor CodeActual DamagesPunitive DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceLost WagesMental AnguishEmployment Law
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 3,332 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