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

Jordan v. Johnson Controls, Inc.

The Chief Justice dissents from the Court’s decision not to reconsider a panel’s opinion en banc, arguing that the panel opinion is contrary to established Texas law concerning retaliatory discharge under article 8307c of the Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent asserts that the "after-acquired evidence defense" is an unprecedented affirmative defense that lacks statutory or common law basis in Texas, and it conflicts with the principle that an employee can recover even if retaliation is not the sole reason for discharge. Furthermore, the defense is criticized for being based on the false premise that an employee cannot be injured by an illegal discharge if they would not have been hired initially due to a falsified application. The dissent also argues that the defense is inherently speculative and cannot be proven as a matter of law, and that it encourages employers to engage in unlawful behavior. Finally, it suggests that equitable goals can be met through existing legal mechanisms like reducing damages or counterclaims for fraud.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeAfter-Acquired EvidenceSummary JudgmentTexas LawEmployment LawAffirmative DefenseEquitable ReliefCausationDamages
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. CONWAY ORGANIZATION, INC.

Plaintiff Sharon Smith, a black woman, sued The Conway Organization, Inc. for racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, alleging she was not hired due to her race. Conway moved for summary judgment, asserting an 'after-acquired evidence' defense, claiming Smith misrepresented her employment history on her application. The court examined the circuit split on whether after-acquired evidence bars liability or only affects remedies in discrimination cases. Following precedents that limit such evidence to the remedies stage, the court denied Conway's motion for summary judgment, concluding that after-acquired evidence is not admissible to determine liability.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964After-Acquired EvidenceSummary Judgment MotionResume FraudFailure to HireBurden of ProofPrima Facie Case
References
26
Case No. E2003-02735-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2005

Eric Teter v. Republic Parking System, Inc.

This case concerns an employment contract dispute over severance pay following an employee's termination. Eric Teter, the employee, was involuntarily terminated by Republic Parking System, Inc. (RPS) after he rejected a new contract. RPS later ceased severance payments, arguing that after-acquired evidence of Teter's gross misconduct (viewing pornography during work hours) absolved them of liability. The Supreme Court of Tennessee overturned lower court rulings, holding that employers using after-acquired evidence in breach of contract actions only need to demonstrate employee misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. The court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether RPS would have fired Teter for the misconduct and thus remanded the case for trial, while affirming that Teter's termination was involuntary and the severance pay provisions were valid.

Employment ContractSeverance PayBreach of ContractAfter-Acquired EvidenceEmployee MisconductGross MisconductBurden of ProofPreponderance of EvidenceSummary JudgmentRemand
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montiel v. Trico Technologies Corp.

Ofelia Montiel, administrator of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Trico Technologies, Inc. Montiel's husband was allegedly discharged for filing a worker's compensation claim. Trico argued the 'after-acquired evidence doctrine' should bar the suit due to Mr. Montiel's pre-employment misrepresentation about alcoholism treatment. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, declining to adopt the after-acquired evidence doctrine in Texas. The court found the doctrine inconsistent with employee protection under the Texas Labor Code and that it could unfairly benefit employers who wrongfully terminate employees.

After-acquired evidence doctrineWrongful dischargeWorker's compensationSummary judgmentTexas Labor CodeEmployer misrepresentationEmployee rightsAppellate reviewJudicial precedentCausation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mitchell v. John Wiesner, Inc.

Vicki Mitchell filed a workers' compensation claim after an injury and was subsequently terminated by her employer, John Wiesner, Inc. She sued for retaliatory discharge, alleging she was fired for filing the claim. Wiesner, Inc. moved for summary judgment, introducing the "after-acquired evidence" defense, citing Mitchell's alleged misrepresentation about her high school diploma on her job application. Mitchell opposed, questioning the defense's validity and arguing a factual dispute existed. The trial court granted summary judgment for Wiesner, but the appellate court reversed, declining to adopt the after-acquired evidence defense for Anti-Retaliation Law claims in Texas and remanding the case.

Retaliatory DischargeAfter-Acquired EvidenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ClaimEmployment LawTexas LawAppellate ReviewFalse ApplicationHigh School DiplomaProbatory Period
References
9
Case No. 01-95-01553-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1996

Johnson v. Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Services

Ceola D. Johnson sued her employer, Bethesda Lutheran Homes and Services, for violating anti-retaliation law, alleging she was fired for filing a worker's compensation claim. The employer discovered Johnson had a prior felony conviction (securing execution of a check by deception) which she had not disclosed on her employment application. The employer was granted summary judgment based on the after-acquired evidence doctrine, contending they would not have hired her had they known of the conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the after-acquired evidence doctrine limits damages in anti-retaliation claims (barring reinstatement and actual damages after discovery of the falsified application) but does not serve as an absolute bar to the lawsuit. The court identified outstanding questions of fact regarding whether the appellant knew her probation was a final criminal conviction, and the employer's hiring and firing intentions.

Employment LawAnti-Retaliation LawWorker's CompensationAfter-Acquired EvidenceSummary Judgment AppealFalsified ApplicationFelony ConvictionDamages LimitationCourt of Appeals DecisionUndisclosed Information
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kanhoye v. Altana Inc.

Plaintiff Rohindranath Kanhoye sued Altana, Inc. and several individuals for discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and New York State Human Rights Law. Kanhoye alleged retaliation after complaining about his pay and performance evaluations, leading to a "Final Warning" and eventual termination. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their actions and seeking to limit remedies based on after-acquired evidence of Kanhoye's alleged misconduct. The Court granted partial summary judgment to defendants, dismissing claims related to the 2004 performance evaluation, gender discrimination, and tortious interference with contractual relations. However, the Court denied summary judgment on retaliation claims concerning the final warning and termination, as well as on the after-acquired evidence defense, citing disputed material facts requiring a jury's resolution.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationEqual Pay ActNew York Human Rights LawTortious InterferenceAfter-Acquired EvidencePretextMcDonnell-Douglas Burden-Shifting
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apresa v. Montfort Insurance Co.

Justice Larsen dissents, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff the opportunity to reopen evidence for a "simple, technical point essential to his case." The dissent highlights the second prong of the standard for reopening evidence under Tex.R.Civ.P. 270, emphasizing that discretion should be liberally exercised to fully develop a case in the interest of justice. Justice Larsen applies the four factors from Hill v. Melton: decisiveness, no undue delay, prevention of injustice, and diligence. The dissent concludes that the proffered testimony was decisive, its reception would not cause undue delay, and refusing it resulted in injustice, particularly in a workers' compensation case where laws should be liberally construed. The dissent also argues that the majority misapplies the diligence requirement, which should apply after a party rests and closes its case, not during the case-in-chief, especially when evidence had not yet been closed.

Appellate ProcedureReopening EvidenceTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionInterest of JusticeDiligence RequirementWorkers' Compensation LawTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureDissenting OpinionManifest Injustice
References
9
Case No. ADJ3156337 (FRE 0209931) ADJ4199467 (FRE 0209932)
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

FRANK FLORES vs. NICKEL'S PAYLESS STORES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for a 1999 right foot and ankle injury, specifically addressing the defendant's claims of error in permanent disability calculation without apportionment and the exclusion of medical evidence. The Board intends to admit the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports into evidence, which the WCJ had previously excluded. This decision will allow the Board to review all relevant medical evidence before making a final determination on apportionment and the applicant's claimed injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and OrderMinutes of Hearing
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,188 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