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

Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Warren

Jackie Warren, an Allsup's Convenience Stores, Inc. manager, sued Allsup for negligence, alleging personal injuries sustained while unloading delivery trucks without adequate assistance or safety equipment. Allsup, a non-subscriber to Texas Workers' Compensation, faced claims under Texas Labor Code section 406.033(d) for failing to provide a safe workplace, proper training, or necessary equipment. Despite a jury finding both parties negligent and awarding damages to Warren, the appellate court reversed the judgment. The court found insufficient evidence to prove Allsup's negligence, specifically noting that Warren did not establish a breach of duty regarding assistance, training, or the provision of a back brace/safety belt or loading dock. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and rendered, with Warren taking nothing from her action against Allsup.

NegligencePersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityUnsafe WorkplaceFailure to TrainLack of AssistanceDuty of CareProximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2005

Duffy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Floor Management, Inc. for personal injuries from a slip and fall on a wet floor inside a Wal-Mart store. Floor Management, a subcontractor for floor cleaning, moved for summary judgment, arguing it had subcontracted its responsibilities to Crystal Clear Nationwide Management and was not actively involved. Wal-Mart cross-moved for contractual indemnification from Floor Management. The Supreme Court denied Floor Management’s motion and partially granted Wal-Mart’s cross-motion, requiring Floor Management to defend Wal-Mart. On cross appeals, the appellate court modified the order, granting Floor Management's motion for summary judgment, finding no liability to plaintiff. The court also granted Wal-Mart's motion for indemnification from Floor Management, applying Arkansas law as per a choice of law provision, and found Floor Management entitled to indemnification from Crystal Clear Nationwide Management.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityIndependent ContractorChoice of LawArkansas LawNegligenceAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Gonzales

This case concerns an appeal by Dillard’s Department Store against a judgment favoring its former employee, David Gonzales, who alleged sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress by his supervisor, Daniel Tellez. Gonzales reported Tellez's inappropriate touching and suggestive remarks to store management, but Dillard's response was deemed inadequate, leading to Gonzales's constructive discharge and a subsequent suicide attempt. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of sexual harassment under the TCHRA, including compensatory damages and attorney's fees, but reversed the judgment for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the associated exemplary damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressAppellate ReviewWorkplace MisconductSupervisor LiabilityDamages AwardAttorney's Fees
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1999

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McKenzie

Jeremiah McKenzie sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and manager Rick Rumfelt for wrongful termination and slander after being fired from a Wal-Mart in Tyler, Texas, allegedly for instituting a worker’s compensation claim and racial discrimination. He later amended his petition to include retaliatory discharge and a Texas Labor Code discrimination claim after being rehired and re-fired from another Wal-Mart store. A jury awarded McKenzie damages, including back-pay, mental anguish, lost credit reputation, and exemplary damages. Wal-Mart challenged the availability of compensatory and punitive damages under former article 5221k in a post-verdict motion. The court of appeals ruled Wal-Mart waived this objection by not raising it earlier. However, the higher court reversed, holding Wal-Mart’s objection was timely as the availability of remedies is a legal question, remanding the case for consideration of the merits.

Wrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeRacial DiscriminationCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesEquitable RemediesJury IssuesAppellate ReviewWaiverPleading Amendments
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ifill v. Saha Food Stores

Plaintiff Humphrey Ifill, an electrician, sustained severe burn injuries on January 17, 1994, while replacing a circuit breaker in an energized electrical panel at a supermarket owned by defendants Saha Food Stores, Pioneer Supermarkets, and 5610 Fifth Realty Corporation. He alleged that the store manager and owner refused his requests to de-energize the circuit, thereby forcing him to work under unsafe conditions. Ifill filed an action against the defendants, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. During the proceedings, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding that there was a triable issue of fact concerning the defendants' control over the plaintiff's work methods.

Electrician InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSupervisory ControlEnergized EquipmentBurn InjuriesComparative Negligence
References
4
Case No. 15-25-00092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2025

Bright Health Management, Inc. v. Texas Department of Insurance and Cantilo & Bennett, L.L.P., Special Deputy Receiver of Bright Healthcare Insurance Company of Texas

This case involves an appeal by Bright Health Management, Inc. (BHM) against Bright Health Insurance Company of Texas (BHICOT), which is currently in receivership. The appeal challenges an order from the 455th Judicial District Court in Travis County, Texas. The Special Deputy Receiver (SDR) for BHICOT moved to compel BHM, a non-party to the liquidation, to produce all BHICOT-related records, specifically electronically stored information (ESI) from BHM's integrated email system. BHM requested the implementation of ESI protocols to protect its privacy, privileged, and confidential information related to its other clients, and sought reimbursement for the costs of production, citing its Management Services Agreement (MSA) with BHICOT and Texas law governing non-party discovery. The District Court, adopting the Special Master's recommendation, denied BHM's request for ESI protocols and ordered BHM to bear all production costs, asserting that BHM created the commingled system for its own economic benefit. BHM argues that this ruling disregards established Texas ESI jurisprudence and its contractual and statutory rights to cost reimbursement, and seeks reversal of the District Court's order.

Insurance ReceivershipElectronic DiscoveryESI ProtocolsNon-Party DiscoveryCost ReimbursementAffiliate TransactionsManagement Services AgreementTexas Insurance LawConfidentialityPrivilege Protection
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falcon v. Starbucks Corp.

Plaintiff Falcon, a former Assistant Store Manager for Starbucks, filed a collective action under the FLSA, alleging Starbucks failed to pay overtime wages to Assistant Store Managers (ASMs). The Court initially granted conditional class certification, leading 355 ASMs to opt into the lawsuit. Defendants moved to decertify the collective action, arguing that the plaintiffs were not similarly situated, defenses were individualized, and the action would be unmanageable. The Court denied the motion, finding that the opt-in plaintiffs were similarly situated due to common job titles, descriptions, pay provisions, and a pervasive environment created by Starbucks' policies that incentivized off-the-clock work and time shaving. The Court also concluded that individualized defenses could be addressed through representative testimony and that fairness considerations favored maintaining the collective action, upholding the remedial purposes of the FLSA.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSAOvertime WagesCollective ActionClass CertificationDecertification MotionOff-the-Clock WorkTime ShavingAssistant Store ManagersStarbucks
References
38
Case No. 08-00-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

SCM Management, Inc./Manuela Ortiz v. Ortiz, Manuela/SCM Management, Inc.

Manuela Ortiz, a housekeeper, sued SCM Management, Inc. for wrongful discharge under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act, alleging retaliation for her intent to file a worker's compensation claim due to worsening hand pain. A jury found in favor of Ortiz, awarding damages for lost wages and mental anguish, but the trial court excluded exemplary damages. SCM appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish. Ortiz cross-appealed the denial of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the findings for retaliatory discharge, lost wages, and mental anguish, but agreed that there was insufficient evidence for exemplary damages.

Worker's CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawMental AnguishExemplary DamagesSufficiency of EvidenceLost WagesMitigation of DamagesTexas Labor CodeAppellate Review
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 4,783 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