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. 05-12-01463-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2012

In re Amos

Heidi Amos, a defendant in a criminal case, successfully moved to recuse the trial judge, Etta Mullin. The assigned judge, Sue Pirtle, granted the recusal. Subsequently, Judge Mullin filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Pirtle granted, scheduling a new hearing. Amos petitioned for writs of mandamus and prohibition, arguing Judge Mullin's motion was improper and Judge Pirtle's authority had expired after the initial recusal and case transfer. The court agreed, concluding Judge Mullin had no authority to file for reconsideration and Judge Pirtle lacked the authority to act. The court conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, preventing Judge Pirtle from reconsidering the recusal order, but denied the writ of prohibition.

Judicial RecusalWrit of MandamusWrit of ProhibitionJudicial AuthorityCriminal ProcedureDue Course of LawTrial Judge ImpartialityMotion for ReconsiderationAssigned JudgeInterlocutory Appeal
References
21
Case No. 05-12-01500-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2013

in Re: Heidi Amos

Heidi Amos, the defendant in a criminal case, sought a writ of mandamus to prevent Judge Sue Pirtle from reconsidering a recusal order against trial judge Etta Mullin. Initially, Judge Pirtle granted Amos's motion to recuse Judge Mullin. However, Judge Mullin filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Pirtle granted, attempting to set a new hearing for the recusal. The Court of Appeals found that Judge Mullin's motion for reconsideration was improper and that Judge Pirtle exceeded her authority by acting after the case had been transferred. Therefore, the court conditionally granted Amos's petition for writ of mandamus, ruling that Judge Pirtle must vacate her order granting reconsideration.

Recusal MotionJudicial AuthorityWrit of MandamusDue ProcessTexas Appellate ProcedureCriminal ProcedureAssigned JudgeReconsideration of OrderJudicial ImpartialityAppellate Remedy
References
23
Case No. 12-1047
Regular Panel Decision

Amos v. McNairy County

Plaintiff Serfin Amos, a black male and former correctional officer, sued McNairy County, Tennessee, and its Sheriff's Department for alleged violations of Title VII, the Tennessee Human Rights Act, and the Tennessee Public Protection Act. Amos claimed race discrimination related to wage disparity, demotion to jailer, probation, and failure to promote, as well as retaliation for filing an EEOC charge and whistleblowing under the TPPA. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on all race discrimination claims, finding insufficient evidence to support these assertions. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, determining that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the County's stated reasons for Amos's termination. The TPPA claim was also dismissed due to failure to establish a prima facie case.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActTennessee Human Rights ActTennessee Public Protection ActRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationWrongful TerminationFailure to PromoteWage Disparity
References
44
Case No. 06-01-00108-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2002

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Scottie D. Amos

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appealed a jury's finding of retaliatory discharge against Scottie Amos for filing a worker's compensation claim. The trial court had rendered judgment on the jury's verdict, awarding Amos $129,160.00 in damages, plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest. Wal-Mart challenged the sufficiency of the evidence for both the retaliatory discharge and the awarded damages. The appellate court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a causal connection between Amos's termination and her worker's compensation claim, citing factors like knowledge of the claim and discriminatory treatment. Furthermore, the court upheld the jury's awards for past and future damages, concluding that Wal-Mart failed to prove Amos did not mitigate damages. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Retaliatory DischargeWorker's Compensation ClaimEmployment LawSufficiency of EvidenceLost WagesMitigation of DamagesAfter-Acquired Evidence DoctrineAppellate ReviewJury VerdictWrongful Termination
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Amos

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appealed a jury's finding of retaliatory discharge against Scottie Amos for filing a worker's compensation claim. The trial court awarded Amos $129,160.00 in damages. Wal-Mart contested the sufficiency of evidence for retaliatory discharge and damages. The appellate court examined circumstantial evidence, including knowledge of the claim by decision-makers, discriminatory treatment compared to a similarly situated employee (Clay Haag), and the falsity of Wal-Mart's stated reason for termination. The court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a causal link between Amos's termination and her worker's compensation claim, and also affirmed the jury's award for both future and past damages.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimTexas Labor CodeJury VerdictDamages AwardSufficiency of EvidenceCausal LinkDiscriminatory TreatmentEmployee MisconductMitigation of Damages
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amo v. Little Rapids Corp.

Plaintiff, Amo, was injured after falling 16 inches from a boulder while jackhammering during a construction excavation project. He sued Little Rapids Corporation (LRC), the property owner, and Laframboise Group, Ltd., the general contractor, under Labor Law § 240 (1). After a second jury trial, it was determined that the height differential was 15 inches and plaintiff fell a total of 16 inches. The Supreme Court ruled this constituted an elevation-related risk under the Labor Law. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the specific circumstances of the fall from an elevated, wet work surface while jackhammering constituted a "special hazard" under Labor Law § 240 (1), especially given the uncontroverted absence of safety devices.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related RiskFall From HeightWorkplace SafetyScaffolding LawIndemnification ClaimsJury FindingsAppellate AffirmationAbsence of Safety Devices
References
31
Case No. 06-01-00038-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2001

Argonaut Southwest Insurance Company v. Amos Walker

Amos Walker appealed a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) determination of a thirteen percent impairment rating. Argonaut Southwest Insurance Company appealed a jury verdict that found Walker's impairment to be fifteen percent, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Walker had initially filed his appeal in the wrong county (Titus County) before refiling in Delta County, where he resided at the time of injury, after the forty-day statutory limit. The Court of Appeals held that the general saving statute, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.064, does not apply to the Workers' Compensation Act, which is a special statutory proceeding with a mandatory and jurisdictional forty-day filing deadline. Therefore, the trial court in Delta County lacked jurisdiction. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and reinstated the TWCC's original impairment determination.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of FilingSaving StatuteTexas LawAppellate ProcedureImpairment RatingSubject-Matter JurisdictionWrongful Filing
References
11
Case No. 02-11-00060-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2012

Amos McAlister A/K/A A.L. McAlister, Individually and D/B/A Albam Investments and Barbara McAlister, Individually and D/B/A Albam Investments v. Hatbreeze Properties, L.L.C.

Amos and Barbara McAlister, doing business as Albam Investments, appealed a trial court judgment that awarded Hatbreeze Properties, L.L.C. damages for their breach of a commercial lease agreement. The McAlisters argued that Hatbreeze breached the lease by not maintaining insurance, making the damages provision an unenforceable penalty, and disputed calculations for utilities and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment regarding the breach of contract, fraud, and fraudulent inducement claims. However, the court found Hatbreeze's initial demand for damages excessive and noted the trial court erred by not crediting the McAlisters' security deposit. Consequently, the judgment was modified to remove attorney's fees and reduce the awarded damages by the security deposit, then affirmed as modified.

Breach of Commercial LeaseSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsFraudulent InducementContract DamagesAttorney's FeesSecurity DepositAppellate ReviewTexas Property LawMitigation of Damages
References
30
Case No. 2016-05-0348 / 27681-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2016

Amos, Harvey v. Goodman Global Group

Harvey J. Amos, an employee, sought temporary disability benefits for a new neck injury in 2015, distinct from a 2010 work injury. The employer, Goodman Global Group, contended that the new symptoms were merely a continuation of the prior injury and that they had not received notice of a new compensable event. The Court found that Mr. Amos failed to present sufficient evidence of a specific work incident causing the 2015 injury. Furthermore, medical proof did not establish that his employment was the primary cause of the injury. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Amos's request for temporary disability benefits, as he was not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

temporary disability benefitsneck injurycervical spine injurydisc herniationexpedited hearingmedical causationarising out of employmentcourse and scope of employmentprior injurysubsequent injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2002

Randy Glenn Huckaby v. State

This appellate decision concerns an employee, Amos, who sued Wal-Mart for retaliatory discharge after filing a worker's compensation claim. The court examined both the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence presented by Amos to establish a causal link between her claim and termination. Key points of contention included Wal-Mart's knowledge of the claim, alleged negative attitudes, adherence to company policy, discriminatory treatment of a similarly situated employee (Clay Haag), and the truthfulness of Wal-Mart's stated reason for discharge (rude behavior). The court found legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of a causal connection and upheld the jury's awards for past and future damages, rejecting Wal-Mart's arguments regarding mitigation and the after-acquired evidence doctrine. The judgment was affirmed.

Retaliatory DischargeWorker's CompensationEmployment LawCausal ConnectionSufficiency of EvidenceCircumstantial EvidenceDamages CalculationMitigation of DamagesAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 23 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