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?

The plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the dismissal of their complaint, which sought damages for an alleged assault and battery perpetrated by unidentified men acting under the direction of Powers, a business agent of the defendant union during a strike. The plaintiff's evidence indicated the tortious act was committed by a union agent in furtherance of the strike. However, there was no evidence of official union authorization for the act, nor was the agent's unlawful activity sufficiently notorious or prolonged to infer knowledge and acquiescence from the union membership. Citing established precedent, the court reiterated that to hold a voluntary, unincorporated association liable, facts must prove all members are liable, either through a public act of the association or member-approved acts of its agents. The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to bind the entire union membership, requiring clear and convincing evidence to identify the union with the individual acts. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to set aside the dismissal was denied.

Assault and BatteryUnion LiabilityAgency LawVoluntary Unincorporated AssociationMembership LiabilityStrike ActionTortious ActDismissal of ComplaintMotion PracticeEvidence Sufficiency
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2007

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

Plaintiffs, a group of Mexican immigrants, alleged discrimination, physical assault, financial exploitation, and retaliation by their employer, Shipley Do-Nuts. They filed claims under Title VII, § 1981, FLSA, and for assault and battery under Texas law. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in part, dismissing claims relating to national origin under § 1981, certain retaliation claims, and claims falling outside the statute of limitations for FLSA and assault/battery. However, the court denied summary judgment on hostile work environment, most retaliation, and some assault and battery claims, finding sufficient fact questions for trial.

DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentFair Labor Standards ActFLSAAssault and BatteryMexican ImmigrantsNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationEmployment Law
References
70
Case No. 09 C 10580
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2012

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

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses Defendant Jason Meyers’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or, alternatively, a motion for a new trial, following a jury verdict entered against him on April 19, 2012. Plaintiff Miryam Al-lam, Meyers' ex-wife, alleged assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The jury awarded Allam $200,000 for pain and suffering and $300,000 in punitive damages. The court granted Meyers' JMOL motion regarding the IIED claim due to insufficient medical evidence, but upheld the jury's liability findings for assault and battery. While denying a new trial on liability for assault and battery, the court granted a new trial on punitive damages, conditioned on Allam's refusal to accept a remittitur reducing the punitive award to $200,000.

AssaultBatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL)New TrialPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesDomestic ViolenceJury VerdictRemittitur
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Rachael Howe, an employee of Yellowbook, alleged sexual harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against her employer, Yellowbook, Inc., and a supervisor, Max Andrews, following an alleged sexual assault by Andrews. Howe claimed she was constructively discharged after reporting the incident. She filed suit under Title VII and the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), alongside state tort claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent supervision and retention, and assault and battery. The court ruled on motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, dismissing several of Howe's state law claims against both defendants due to preemption or lack of evidence, but allowing her Title VII claims against Yellowbook and her IIED and assault and battery claims against Andrews to proceed to trial.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIITCHRAIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressFraudulent MisrepresentationNegligent SupervisionNegligent RetentionAssault and Battery
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Plaintiffs John and Mary Kenna sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for alleged negligence. John Kenna, a security guard at an IRS facility, was assaulted by an IRS employee, Kerry P. Hasapidis, whom the plaintiffs claim the IRS negligently hired, supervised, and retained despite knowledge of his violent propensities and mental health issues. Mary Kenna also sought damages for loss of consortium. The defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the claim was barred by the FTCA's intentional tort exception (§ 2680(h)), which covers claims arising out of assault or battery. The Court, citing Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedents, found that the plaintiffs' claims, though framed as negligent hiring and supervision, directly stemmed from the assault and battery committed by a government employee acting within the scope of his employment. The Court concluded that the government had not waived its sovereign immunity for this type of claim, thereby granting the defendant's motion and dismissing the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCASovereign ImmunityIntentional Tort ExceptionNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionAssaultBatteryFederal EmployeeScope of Employment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

L. N. McDonald was injured and his son was killed in a workplace accident in 1977 while employed by Sabayrac Battery Associates, Inc. McDonald received workers' compensation benefits but later filed suit in 1980, alleging the Texas Workers' Compensation Act was unconstitutional as applied. He contended a denial of due process due to lack of actual notice for waiving benefits and suing for common law negligence, and a denial of equal protection for being precluded from recovering exemplary damages. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the Act's provisions regarding constructive notice and the classification for exemplary damages were constitutional and reasonable.

Workers' CompensationConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefCommon Law NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkplace Accident
References
5
Case No. 01-13-01030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2015

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

Maribel Imamovic appealed a trial court's judgment awarding her zero damages in a car-wreck case where Appellees Robert Milstead and Texford Battery Company, Inc. admitted fault. The appeal concerned personal-injury damages, with Imamovic arguing the jury's verdict was against the great weight of the evidence. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to cast doubt on Imamovic's credibility and the causal link between the accident and her alleged injuries, particularly given conflicting medical opinions and her prior medical history.

Car AccidentPersonal InjuryDamages AwardZero Damages RuleAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyMedical Expert TestimonyCausation DisputeCredibility AssessmentSpinal Injury
References
17
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05678 [187 AD3d 501]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2020

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

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, dismissing Celso Jiraud's complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc. Jiraud had alleged negligent supervision, assault, and battery by a maintenance worker. The court found Barnes & Noble not liable for negligent supervision due to lack of prior knowledge of the employee's violent propensities. Furthermore, it ruled out liability for assault and battery under respondeat superior, as the employee's actions were not within the scope of employment or in furtherance of the employer's interests. Consequently, the entire complaint was dismissed.

Negligent supervisionAssault and batteryRespondeat superiorSummary judgmentEmployee misconductEmployer liabilityViolent propensitiesScope of employmentAppellate reviewComplaint dismissal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Deborah Ewald sued her employer, Wornick Family Foods, and co-worker Oscar Alonzo, alleging sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court entered a default judgment against Alonzo and granted summary judgment in favor of Wornick. Ewald appealed the summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment concerning intentional infliction of emotional distress and retaliatory discharge, and limited compensatory damages for lost wages to the date the business closed. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on the claims of sexual harassment and assault and battery against Wornick, finding that material factual disputes existed.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeAssault and BatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment AppealEmployment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoRespondeat SuperiorTexas Human Rights Act
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff, a former employee, appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendant employer, dismissing her six causes of action. Her claims included gender discrimination, wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault and battery (due to secondhand smoke), unsafe workplace (Labor Law § 200), and civil rights discrimination (Civil Rights Law § 40-c), all stemming from alleged retaliation for her complaints about smoking in the office. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding the mistreatment was animus-based, not sexual discrimination. The court also held that her employment was at-will, her emotional distress claims lacked outrageous conduct, and her assault and battery and unsafe workplace claims were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provisions.

Employment-at-willSummary JudgmentGender DiscriminationWrongful DischargeIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAssault and BatteryUnsafe WorkplaceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySmoking PolicyRetaliation
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 767 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