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

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Clifford Ray McKinney, an escort for oversized loads, suffered a traumatic leg amputation after a low-hanging telephone line owned by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Bell) snagged on an oversized truck being escorted for Xerxes Corporation. A jury found Bell 75% negligent, Xerxes 15% negligent, and McKinney 10% negligent, awarding McKinney 75% of total damages. Bell appealed, challenging findings of negligence and proximate cause, while McKinney cross-appealed for 90% of damages, citing joint and several liability. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Bell had constructive notice of the defective line due to inadequate inspection practices. The court also ruled that McKinney's nonsuit of Xerxes constituted a settlement, releasing Xerxes from additional liability and validating the 75% damage apportionment.

NegligencePremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeProximate CauseComparative NegligenceJoint and Several LiabilitySettlementWorkers' CompensationTelephone LinesOverhead Obstruction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This appeal concerns a multivehicle collision on the West Side Highway where plaintiffs alleged negligence and reckless disregard by the City of New York and Burtis Construction Co. in setting up an unsafe lane closure. The jury found both defendants negligent and reckless, awarding significant damages to plaintiff James Gregware for his debilitating injuries, and to his wife for loss of services. The appellate court addressed issues regarding plaintiffs' counsel's summation remarks and the apportionment of damages. While finding the remarks regrettable but not depriving the defendant of a fair trial, the court determined that the 65%-35% liability apportionment between the City and Burtis was against the weight of the evidence. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment regarding liability and damages, but modified it to grant the City's cross-claim for indemnification and remanded the case for a new trial solely on the apportionment of liability between the City and Burtis.

Multivehicle collisionWest Side HighwayLane closureNegligenceReckless disregardConstruction projectApportionment of liabilityDamagesPain and sufferingLoss of services
References
21
Case No. 09-23-00403-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2024

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

GEICO Indemnity Insurance Company (Relator) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus complaining that the trial court clearly abused its discretion by ordering GEICO to deliver most of its settlement proceeds from a property damage claim to Adena Amber Guthrie and Cody Wayne Guthrie (Real Parties in Interest). The underlying dispute involved a vehicle leased by the Guthries, insured by GEICO, and damaged in an accident, leading GEICO to pay the lienholder Chase $41,229. GEICO intervened in the Guthries' lawsuit against the at-fault parties to recover its subrogation damages and later reached its own separate settlement. Despite GEICO's settlement and notice of non-suit, the trial court granted the Guthries' Motion for Apportionment, awarding GEICO only $1,500 and the rest to the Guthries, and subsequently denied GEICO's motions to vacate. The Court of Appeals found the trial court abused its discretion by failing to correctly apply the law regarding contractual subrogation and by relying on inapplicable workers' compensation statutes. The court conditionally granted mandamus relief, instructing the trial court to vacate its orders and deny the Motion for Apportionment.

Mandamus ReliefAbuse of DiscretionProperty Damage ClaimSettlement ProceedsSubrogation RightsContractual SubrogationEquitable SubrogationInsurance PolicyTrial Court OrdersDue Process
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case concerns the determination of compensatory damages and front pay for Plaintiff Sharon Pollard against Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. The Court previously found DuPont liable for Title VII discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a damages hearing in July 2003, the Court concluded Plaintiff could not return to work due to severe anxiety and depression stemming from harassment and DuPont's insufficient response. The Court awarded Plaintiff $1,004,374.00 in front pay through age 65, determining she had adequately mitigated her damages. Additionally, $950,000.00 in compensatory damages was awarded for emotional distress, with a future hearing scheduled to determine punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentCompensatory DamagesFront PayIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderMitigation of DamagesExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Case No. 1:06-cv-01137
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2009

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Plaintiff Douglas Baker filed a civil action against Defendant Windsor Republic Doors (WRD) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tennessee Handicap Act (THA), and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. A jury found WRD liable for both claims, awarding Baker back pay and compensatory damages. The Court granted judgment for WRD on the discrimination claim but sustained the retaliation claim. This order addresses the availability of compensatory damages for ADA retaliation claims, an issue with conflicting legal authority among federal courts. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, concluded that compensatory damages are available for ADA retaliation claims and found that the THRA and THA also provide alternative grounds for sustaining the award. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding compensatory damages was denied, and the jury's $29,500 compensatory award was upheld.

Americans with Disabilities ActADA RetaliationTennessee Handicap ActTennessee Human Rights ActCompensatory DamagesJury AwardStatutory InterpretationDisability DiscriminationCivil RightsEmployment Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Haskell B. Putman, Jr., an employee of Missouri Valley, Inc., died after falling through an unbarricaded hole at a construction site in Potter County. His beneficiaries, including his widow Juanita Lucille Putman, brought a wrongful death action seeking exemplary damages from Missouri Valley, Inc., alleging gross negligence. The jury found Missouri Valley, Inc. guilty of gross negligence and awarded $50,000 in exemplary damages. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the gross negligence findings. The court clarified that Texas law requires an "entire want of care" or "conscious indifference" to justify exemplary damages, which was not met given Missouri Valley's established safety program, thereby negating the recovery of exemplary damages.

Wrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Construction AccidentAppellate ReviewConscious IndifferenceSafety Program
References
7
Case No. 13-04-358-CV, 13-04-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This consolidated appeal involves a declaratory judgment action and counterclaims for damages. Appellants G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham Jr. sought to collect a 1990 judgment against Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez and Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada by claiming Becky Ortiz's business, Schor's, was community property subject to levy. They obtained an ex parte receivership, prompting Ortiz to file counterclaims for wrongful conduct including abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgments for Ortiz, ruling the 1990 debt was contractual and Schor's was her special community property, not liable for Celada's debt. A jury awarded Ortiz actual and punitive damages on her counterclaims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgments in favor of Ortiz, but reversed and rendered the judgment for damages, finding no legal sufficiency of evidence for any of Ortiz's tort claims, thereby also precluding punitive damages and mental anguish awards.

Declaratory JudgmentEx Parte ReceivershipCommunity PropertySpecial Community PropertyTortious ConductAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Clint Cheatham, an apprentice electrician, died after falling from a Sam’s Wholesale Club sign while performing maintenance. His wife, daughter, and mother (Robyn Cheatham, Brooke Cheatham, and Marie Brown) sued Samco Properties, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for wrongful death, alleging products liability and negligence. The jury found Wal-Mart negligent and Cheatham contributorily negligent, apportioning fault at 50% each, and awarded damages. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging jury instructions, sufficiency of evidence for duty, proximate cause, apportionment of negligence, the ad litem fee, and pecuniary loss damages. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on duty, proximate cause, and negligence apportionment, and pecuniary losses. However, the court found the ad litem fee excessive and remanded that portion of the judgment for further proceedings.

Premises liabilityWrongful deathNegligenceContributory negligenceIndependent contractorHidden dangerProximate causeForeseeabilityDamagesAd litem fee
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

In 1985, claimant sustained a right shoulder injury while employed by Dunlop Tire, resulting in a permanent partial disability. In 1998, he re-injured the same shoulder while working for Tops Markets, Inc., leading to a new workers' compensation claim. An impartial specialist attributed 85% of the disability to the 1985 injury and 15% to the 1998 injury. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially rejected apportionment, the Board reversed and applied the 85/15 apportionment. Claimant appealed, contending apportionment was unwarranted due to his disclosure of the prior injury and lack of prior disability symptoms. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial medical evidence to support the apportionment.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentPrior InjuryShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical Expert TestimonyBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewExacerbation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,402 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