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

Keyser v. Kroger Company

This order addresses a motion to remand a case concerning a plaintiff's alleged wrongful discharge after filing a work-related injury claim under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. article 8307c. The defendant, Kroger, contested the applicability of article 8307c due to its non-subscriber status to the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act. However, the Court ruled that article 8307c applies to any worker, irrespective of the employer's subscription to the Act. Citing 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) and relevant precedents, the Court determined that actions under article 8307c fall under Texas workers' compensation laws and are thus more suitable for state court jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court vacated its previous order denying the motion and remanded the case to the 17th District Court of Tarrant County, Texas.

Wrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation RetaliationTexas Workers' Compensation ActRemoval JurisdictionState Court RemandFederal PreemptionArticle 8307cNon-subscriber EmployerJurisdiction DisputeStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gifford Hill American, Inc. v. Whittington

Justice Quinn concurs with the majority's opinion on points two and three and specially concurs on point one regarding a retaliatory discharge claim under article 8307c of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes. Gifford Hill American, Inc. acknowledged a causal link between Paul Whittington's discharge and his workers' compensation claim, satisfying the nexus for article 8307c. Quinn notes that without this admission, the evidence would have been insufficient to prove retaliation, suggesting the employer's actions were driven by safety concerns rather than retaliatory intent. The opinion references several related cases, including McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green and Parham v. Carrier Corp., and notes that article 8307c was later replaced by § 451.001 of the Texas Labor Code.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers CompensationCausationTexas Labor LawEmployment LawEmployer LiabilityJudicial ConcurrenceMcDonnell Douglas TestStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

VanTran Electric Corp. v. Thomas

Plaintiff Thomas sued VanTran Electric Corporation after being discharged from his job following a worker's compensation claim. Thomas alleged he was fired in retaliation for filing the claim and hiring an attorney, violating Article 8307c V.A.T.S. A jury found in favor of Thomas, awarding $25,000 for past lost wages, $25,000 for future lost wages, and $5,000 in exemplary damages, totaling $55,000. VanTran appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the violation and damages, and that exemplary damages were not authorized by Article 8307c. The court overruled all points of error, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation RetaliationExemplary DamagesLost WagesJury VerdictAppealTexas LawOccupational InjuryDischargeRetaliatory Discharge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Britt v. Sherman Foundry

Plaintiff Britt sued his former employer, Sherman Foundry, under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act for wrongful discharge after an on-the-job injury. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. On appeal, Britt argued that Article 8307c applied to non-subscribers and that informing his supervisor constituted instituting proceedings under the Act. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Britt's petition did not allege the filing of a claim or institution of proceedings required by Article 8307c prior to his termination. The court also clarified that merely reporting the injury was not sufficient to institute proceedings, especially since Britt was not covered by compensation insurance.

Worker's CompensationWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTexas Worker's Compensation ActArticle 8307cNon-subscriber EmployerClaim FilingInstitution of ProceedingsAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Bettie Jo Holland sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for worker's compensation discrimination and retaliation after a back injury, seeking actual, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. She also filed claims against Wal-Mart's insurance carrier and claims adjuster under the Insurance Code and DTPA, on which the jury found no liability. The court of appeals affirmed the award of attorney's fees under former article 8307c of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes. The Supreme Court considered whether attorney's fees are recoverable under this statute. The Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals in part, holding that attorney's fees are not recoverable under article 8307c as the statute does not expressly provide for them.

Worker's Compensation DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeAttorney's Fees RecoverabilityStatutory ConstructionTexas Supreme CourtArticle 8307cTexas Labor CodeAppellate ProcedureWaiver of ErrorLegal Sufficiency Challenge
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Mexican Railway Co. v. Bouchet

Justice Spector pens a concurring and dissenting opinion, challenging the majority's interpretation of Texas's Anti-Retaliation Law, former article 8307c. Spector argues against the majority's conclusion that the law only protects employees of workers’ compensation insurance subscribers, advocating for a broader application to include employees of nonsubscribers, citing principles of statutory construction and the Act's comprehensive nature. Despite this disagreement, Spector concurs with the judgment that Lawrence Bouchet cannot sue under article 8307c. This concurrence stems from the fact that Bouchet's original lawsuit was filed under the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), a federal compensation scheme, and therefore does not fall under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act.

Workers' CompensationAnti-Retaliation LawStatutory ConstructionFELANonsubscriberEmployer LiabilityTexas LawRemedial StatutesLegislative IntentConcurring Opinion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hodge v. BSB Investments, Inc.

Elizabeth Hodge appealed a summary judgment granted to BSB Investments, Inc. in a wrongful discharge action under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Hodge was injured on the job in 1988 while BSB was a nonsubscriber. She subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim and hired an attorney, leading to her termination by BSB. The core issue was whether Article 8307c of the Act, which protects claimants from discrimination, extends to employees of nonsubscribing employers. The court determined that Article 8307c applies equally to employees of both subscribers and nonsubscribers. Additionally, BSB failed to establish that Hodge did not file her claim in good faith. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Wrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation ActNonsubscriber EmployerSummary Judgment AppealGood Faith ClaimEmployment DiscriminationTexas Appellate LawStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityClaimant Protection
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gates v. City of Fort Worth

Richard L. Gates, an employee of the City of Fort Worth, suffered an on-the-job injury in 1975 and subsequently received a worker's compensation settlement. After obtaining a light duty medical release, the City informed Gates it could not re-employ him due to the unavailability of light duty positions. Gates filed suit, alleging wrongful termination in violation of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art 8307c, claiming discrimination for pursuing a worker's compensation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Fort Worth and its personnel director, F. L. Priore. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Article 8307c does not apply to public employees covered by Article 8309h, and upheld the doctrine of governmental immunity.

Worker's CompensationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPublic EmployeesTexas LawRetaliation ClaimAppellate ReviewFort Worth
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart v. Littlefield

C. Paul Stewart, a maintenance person, filed a worker's compensation claim after being injured on the job. Subsequently, John C. Littlefield, an officer of Stewart's employer, Countryside Village Homeowners’ Association, eliminated Stewart's position. Stewart sued Littlefield, Countryside, and Logan Properties, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge under former article 8307c of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes. Littlefield moved for summary judgment, arguing he was not Stewart's employer and thus not liable under the statute, which he contended applies only to employers. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Littlefield. This appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the term "person" in article 8307c refers exclusively to employers, thereby absolving Littlefield, who acted as an individual officer rather than Stewart's employer.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimEmployer-Employee RelationshipSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeCorporate Officer LiabilityDiscriminationLegislative IntentWorkmen's Compensation Act
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richardson v. Owens-Illinois Glass Container, Inc.

This order addresses a plaintiff's motion to remand, where the central issue is whether a claim under Article 8307c of Vernon's Annotated Statutes, concerning wrongful discharge for filing workers' compensation claims, should be considered as arising under Texas workmen's compensation law. Federal statute 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c) generally prohibits the removal of state workmen's compensation actions to federal court. While earlier federal cases in Texas leaned towards remand, more recent Texas appellate decisions have distinguished wrongful discharge claims from direct workers' compensation benefits, asserting that the latter pertains specifically to physical injuries. Citing these precedents and other federal rulings, the court concludes that an Article 8307c claim does not fall under the Texas workmen's compensation act for removal purposes. Consequently, the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand to State Court is denied.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeMotion to RemandFederal JurisdictionState Law InterpretationArticle 8307cTexas LawDiscrimination ClaimRemoval Statute
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,421 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