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

Albertson's, Inc. v. Ortiz

Albertson's Inc. appealed a jury verdict awarding damages to Rachel Ortiz and John Downes, volunteer supporters of the United Farm Workers (UFW), who were arrested for leafleting at an Albertson's store in Austin. Ortiz and Downes sued Albertson's for the denial of their individual rights under the Texas Constitution. The central issue was whether the Texas Constitution's bill of rights is self-executing, creating a cause of action for damages against a private entity for infringing free-speech rights. The appellate court concluded that the Texas Constitution does not create such a tort action against private entities, distinguishing it from federal statutes like 42 U.S.C. § 1983 which applies to state actors. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a judgment that Ortiz and Downes take nothing.

Free SpeechTexas Constitution Article I Section 8Constitutional DamagesPrivate Actor LiabilityNLRA PreemptionAgricultural WorkersJudicial Self-ExecutionAppellate ReversalCivil Rights ClaimRetail Solicitation
References
22
Case No. NO. 3-92-393-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1993

Albertson's, Inc. v. United Farm Workers, AFL-CIO, Barbara Ritter, Rachel Ortiz, John Downes and Charles Race

Albertson's, Inc. appealed an adverse judgment awarding damages to Rachel Ortiz and John Downes following a jury verdict. The central legal question was whether the Texas Constitution's bill of rights independently creates a cause of action for damages against a private entity for infringing free-speech rights. Ortiz and Downes, supporters of the United Farm Workers, were arrested for distributing leaflets at an Albertson's store, leading to a lawsuit claiming denial of constitutional rights among other torts. The trial court found Albertson's interfered with their free speech and awarded damages. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the Texas Constitution does not imply a private cause of action for damages against a private entity for such infringements, especially in the absence of a statutory remedy comparable to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Texas ConstitutionFree Speech RightsPrivate Entity LiabilityDamages ClaimNational Labor Relations Act PreemptionAgricultural Laborers ExemptionConstitutional TortBivens ActionAppellate ReviewReversed Judgment
References
22
Case No. 2-03-189-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2004

Albertson's, Inc., a Certified Self-Insured v. Kathryn D. Ellis and Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

Albertson's, Inc., a self-insured employer, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment which found a lack of jurisdiction. The trial court had concluded that the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) appeals panel had not rendered a final decision regarding Kathryn D. Ellis's maximum medical improvement (MMI) date and impairment rating (IR), thus preventing judicial review. Albertson's argued the appeals panel's 'affirmed in part and reversed and rendered in part' decision constituted a final decision and that a plea to the jurisdiction, not a summary judgment, was the proper procedural vehicle. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the TWCC appeals panel's decision was not final, effectively remanding the case for the appointment of a second designated doctor, and that a motion for summary judgment is an appropriate procedural vehicle to raise subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewSummary JudgmentJurisdictionAdministrative RemediesFinal DecisionImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementDesignated DoctorTexas Labor Code
References
3
Case No. 08-01-00329-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2002

Albertson's, Inc. v. Lara, Eyna

Albertson's, Inc. appealed a trial court's finding that notice regarding an injured former employee's impairment rating was insufficient. Eyna Lara, the injured employee, received a report from Dr. Hollander certifying maximum medical improvement (MMI) and a 5 percent impairment rating (IR), along with a Form TWCC-69 containing a handwritten 'not valid' notation, and Form EES-19. Lara did not dispute the rating within the 90-day period stipulated by Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Rule 130.5(e). The trial court concluded that the notice was insufficient to trigger the 90-day rule, thus preventing the rating from becoming final. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the misleading nature of the forms, particularly the 'not valid' notation, rendered the notice inadequate to inform Lara of her rights and obligations, and thus did not trigger the 90-day dispute period.

Impairment RatingWorkers' CompensationMaximum Medical ImprovementNotice RequirementsTexas Administrative CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory ConstructionDue ProcessStipulated FactsTimeliness of Dispute
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Albertsons Grocery Stores

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, as subrogee of Shirley T. Mills, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Albertsons Grocery Stores. Mills, an employee, was injured at Albertsons' store and received workers' compensation benefits from Hartford but did not sue Albertsons. Hartford then sued Albertsons in its own name, well within the statute of limitations. Albertsons argued that Hartford could only be subrogated to a recovery by Mills, and since Mills did not sue, she could not recover, thus neither could Hartford. The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that subrogation applies to the right to seek recovery, not just actual recoveries, and that the statute-of-limitations defense was not available to Albertsons when Hartford filed suit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsThird-Party TortfeasorInsurance CarrierDerivative ClaimRights of RecoveryTexas LawAppeal
References
24
Case No. ADJ10544664
Regular
Jan 03, 2018

RAYMOND GONZALEZ vs. ALBERTSONS, permissibly self-insured, ALBERTSONS HOLDINGS FULLERTON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant Albertson's Petition for Removal. The Board found that removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result, and reconsideration would be inadequate. The WCJ's report indicated the defendant's petition was denied due to procedural deficiency (failure to attach the subpoena) and that no substantive ruling was made that would warrant removal. The Board agreed that the defendant did not demonstrate the necessary prejudice for this exceptional relief.

Petition for RemovalDenying PetitionSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationPetition to QuashSubpoenaSDTEAMSAOE/COE
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albertson's, Inc. v. Ellis

This workers' compensation case concerns Albertson's, Inc.'s appeal against Kathryn D. Ellis and the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) following the trial court's grant of summary judgment due to lack of jurisdiction. Albertson's argued the TWCC appeals panel's decision was final, enabling judicial review, while Ellis contended administrative remedies were not exhausted. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the appeals panel's decision, despite its phrasing, effectively constituted a remand for further evidence on medical improvement and impairment rating, thereby lacking finality for judicial review. The court also clarified that a motion for summary judgment is a proper vehicle to raise jurisdictional issues.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesFinal DecisionMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingDesignated DoctorAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Villegas v. Albertsons, LLC

Plaintiff Arturo Villegas, an employee at Albertsons, brought claims under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for interference and retaliation, and a defamation claim against Albertsons, LLC and his supervisor, Antonio Labrado. Villegas alleged FMLA interference due to schedule adjustments instead of FMLA leave for his daughter's medical appointments and Mr. Labrado discouraging leave. He also claimed retaliation after his termination for alleged theft and defamation by Mr. Labrado. The Court granted summary judgment for the Defendants, finding no prejudice for the FMLA interference claim as Villegas attended all appointments and received his normal paycheck. The FMLA retaliation claim failed due to lack of a prima facie case and no proof of pretext. The defamation claim also failed as no defamatory statement was made by Mr. Labrado, and even if it had, it would be qualifiedly privileged.

FMLA InterferenceFMLA RetaliationDefamationSummary JudgmentWorkplace TheftSupervisor LiabilityNotice RequirementsQualified PrivilegeMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkEmployment Law
References
34
Case No. ADJ1051150 (OAK 0324388) ADJ2365304 (OAK 0343863)
Regular
Aug 18, 2010

GUSTAVIA PERKINS vs. ALBERTSONS, JC PENNEY, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, SAVEMART SUPERMARKETS, PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Albertsons' petition for reconsideration as the order compelling arbitration was not a final decision. The Board granted Albertsons' alternative petition for removal to correct an inadvertent omission. Specifically, the Order compelling arbitration, which was initially issued only in case ADJ1051150, was amended to include case ADJ2365304 as well.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 5271Labor Code Section 5900Interlocutory OrderPetition for ContributionMandatory ArbitrationCompromise and ReleaseCumulative Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albertson's, Inc. v. Sinclair

The case considers three issues regarding judicial review of a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision: the timing of filing a petition copy with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253, the applicability of the "mailbox rule" to such filings, and whether untimely filing with the Commission deprives the trial court of jurisdiction. The court holds that section 410.253 requires simultaneous filing with both the trial court and the Commission, and that the mailbox rule applies to these filings. Furthermore, the court concludes that while the simultaneous filing requirement is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. The decision affirms the court of appeals' judgment to remand the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationMailbox RuleJurisdictionMandatory vs DirectoryTexas Labor CodeAppeals Panel DecisionSimultaneous FilingStatutory Construction
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 65 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