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

Chandler v. AMR American Eagle Airline

Plaintiff Kenton Chandler, a part-time catering clerk, sued AMR American Eagle Airline, alleging failure to accommodate a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), age discrimination and hostile work environment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), and retaliation. Chandler claimed that his job-related back and leg injuries constituted a disability and that the defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation. He also asserted claims of disparate treatment in work assignments and compensation due to his age, alongside a hostile work environment characterized by age-related comments and threats. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding that several allegations were not administratively exhausted. Furthermore, the court determined that Chandler failed to establish a prima facie case for disability under the ADA, age discrimination, hostile work environment, or a causal connection for his retaliation claim.

Disability DiscriminationAge DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdministrative ExhaustionADA ClaimADEA ClaimWorkplace DiscriminationEmployment Law
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2009

Williamson v. American National Insurance Company

Plaintiff Jeffrey Alan Williamson sued Defendant American National Insurance Company (ANICO) alleging employment discrimination based on disability and retaliation under state and federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alongside common law claims of negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). Williamson, a Programmer Analyst, contended that ANICO discriminated against him after he suffered a stroke and recurring seizures by forcing a transfer, assigning him responsibilities as a floor captain despite his condition, mishandling a seizure incident in a company van pool, and mischaracterizing sick leave as vacation time. ANICO moved for summary judgment, asserting that Williamson's claims were barred by judicial estoppel due to his application for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits, failure to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims, and a lack of evidence to support discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation, negligence, or IIED, citing his termination as part of a legitimate reduction-in-force. The court granted ANICO's motion for summary judgment, ruling that several statutory claims were inapplicable, hostile work environment and retaliation claims were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and judicial estoppel precluded the ADA claim due to the inconsistency with the SSDI application. Furthermore, the court found Williamson failed to establish a 'disability' under the ADA and TCHRA, dismissed the negligence and IIED claims as barred by other statutory remedies and insufficient facts, and upheld ANICO's reduction-in-force as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA)Summary JudgmentJudicial EstoppelReduction-in-Force (RIF)Reasonable Accommodation
References
154
Case No. 04-86-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 1986

American Home Assurance Co. v. Guevara

This worker's compensation case involved a jury finding that the appellee, Francisco H. Guevara, was totally and permanently disabled due to a back injury. The appellant, American Home Assurance Company, challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the award of prejudgment interest. The Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio, affirmed the jury's findings on total and permanent disability, concluding there was sufficient evidence. However, the court reformed the judgment to reduce the prejudgment interest rate from 10% to 4% in accordance with the Worker's Compensation Act. The court also upheld the denial of a new trial motion based on unproven jury misconduct. Justice Cantu dissented regarding the factual sufficiency of the disability finding.

worker's compensationtotal permanent disabilityprejudgment interestjury misconductfactual sufficiencyno evidence pointappellate reviewTexas lawruptured discmedical testimony
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

West American Insurance Co. v. Montgomery

This is the second appeal of a workers' compensation case involving Willie Montgomery and West American Insurance Company. The initial judgment awarded Montgomery 75% permanent partial disability, temporary total disability, and medical expenses. West American appealed this judgment, which was affirmed. Subsequently, a dispute arose over the calculation of interest on the judgment, specifically concerning unaccrued permanent partial disability benefits and unpaid medical benefits. The trial court granted West American's motion to quash execution on the bond, ruling they were not liable for interest on these specific amounts under T.C.A. § 50-6-225(h). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, clarifying that workers' compensation law does not entitle an employee to interest on payments not yet due or on medical benefits paid directly to providers, consistent with T.C.A. § 50-6-204 and § 50-6-225(h).

Workers' CompensationInterest CalculationMedical BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawAppellate ReviewUnaccrued BenefitsJudgment Enforcement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walters v. American States Insurance Co.

Justice, an employee of Lamport, was found dead, and Walters, the claimant, sought workers' compensation. American States, the insurer, argued that Walters failed to negate a statutory exclusion for injuries caused by a third person for personal reasons. The court of appeals sided with American States, placing the burden on Walters. This concurring opinion agrees with the majority's result that Walters failed to meet the burden. However, Justice McGee argues that Walters should be entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the assailant acted for reasons other than personal ones, especially when the cause of death is an intentional act of an unknown assailant and motives are unclear, and the employee was found dead within the scope of employment. This presumption, McGee argues, aligns with a liberal construction of the Workers' Compensation Act.

Workers' CompensationStatutory ExclusionBurden of ProofLegal PresumptionUnexplained DeathIntentional InjuryCourse of EmploymentCausationCircumstantial EvidenceThird-Party Injury
References
13
Case No. 09-01-511 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2002

American National Insurance Company, and American National Property and Casualty Company v. Frank E. Cannon, II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Similarly Situated

This is an interlocutory appeal from a class certification order. American National Insurance Company (ANICO) and American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC) appealed the certification of a class action brought by former agents (Frank E. Cannon II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover). The agents alleged breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Insurance Code, seeking declaratory judgments regarding non-compete provisions and repayment of advance agreements. The appellate court found that individual issues, such as the reasonableness of non-compete restrictions and reliance on oral representations for advance payments, predominated over common issues. Consequently, the court determined that the requirements for class certification under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42(b)(4), (b)(2), and (b)(1)(A) were not satisfied. The class certification order was vacated, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealContract DisputeNon-compete ClauseAgent AgreementsInsurance AgentsDeclaratory JudgmentStandingRipenessPredominance
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2012

Brooklyn Center for Independence of Disabled v. Bloomberg

This case, initiated shortly after Hurricane Irene in 2011, addresses whether New York City's emergency preparedness plans adequately serve individuals with disabilities. Non-profit organizations and individual plaintiffs sued the City of New York and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, alleging a systemic failure to meet the needs of disabled persons, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and New York City Human Rights Law. Specific concerns include inaccessible public transportation for evacuations, lack of high-rise evacuation strategies, ineffective emergency shelters, and insufficient provisions for immediate assistance for people with disabilities. The court found that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims and subsequently granted their motion for class certification, with a modified class definition, allowing the case to proceed as a class action.

Disability RightsEmergency PreparednessClass ActionAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActNew York City Human Rights LawHurricane IreneMobility DisabilitiesPublic SafetyInjunctive Relief
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff Russell E. Parker sued American Airlines for handicap and disability discrimination and workers’ compensation retaliation under Texas and federal laws. American Airlines removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing Parker’s claims were preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) as they involved the collective-bargaining agreement. The Court determined that Parker's state-law workers' compensation retaliation claim and federal and state disability discrimination claims were independent of the CBA. Therefore, resolution of these claims did not require interpretation or application of the CBA. Based on this reasoning, the Court denied American Airlines' motion to dismiss.

Railway Labor ActPreemptionMotion to DismissDisability DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)Collective Bargaining AgreementEmployment LawDiscrimination
References
26
Case No. 03-99-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Coalition of Texans With Disabilities v. Tommy v. Smith, Former Commissioner of Licensing and Regulation for Department of Licensing and Regulation, in His Official Capacity Rachelle A. Martin, Executive Director of TDLR And Members of the Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation

The Coalition of Texans with Disabilities challenged the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation's (TDLR) interpretation of Section 2(g) of the Architectural Barriers Act. The dispute centered on whether the Act's exemption for religious facilities applied to entire buildings or only to specific areas used for religious rituals. The district court sided with the TDLR, broadly exempting entire religious buildings. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the Department's interpretation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the Act's purpose of eliminating barriers for disabled persons. The appellate court clarified that the exemption only applies to places within a religious building used primarily for rituals, not the entire structure, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

AccessibilityDisability RightsReligious ExemptionsArchitectural Barriers ActStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas LawSummary Judgment
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 16,936 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