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

Esparza v. Nolan Wells Communications, Inc.

Thomas Esparza, Jr. appealed a trial court's judgment regarding his usury counterclaim against Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. The central dispute revolved around the applicability of a 'bona fide error' defense under Texas usury law, stemming from an employee's unauthorized charge of interest on Esparza's account. The appellate court clarified that intent to charge usurious interest is immaterial if such interest was, in fact, charged through a unilateral act within implied authority, and that mistakes of law do not fall under the 'accidental and bona fide error' exception. The court found that Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. had charged $93.60 in usurious interest. Consequently, the appellate court modified the trial court's judgment, awarding Esparza a forfeiture of $390.40 and $6,000.00 in attorney's fees as an offset against Nolan Wells' original claim, thus affirming the modified judgment.

Usury LawStatutory InterpretationBona Fide Error DefenseImplied AuthorityDebtor-Creditor RelationsAppellate ProcedureAttorney's FeesTexas Civil StatutesCommercial TransactionsInterest Rates
References
8
Case No. 2017-05-0225
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2017

Glasgow, Jack v. 31-W Insulation Co., Inc.

Jack Glasgow, an employee, sustained multiple injuries after falling while installing insulation for 31-W Insulation Co., Inc. The employer denied the workers' compensation claim, asserting willful misconduct and willful failure to use safety devices as affirmative defenses, citing Glasgow's prior similar injury and alleged disregard of safety protocols. The trial court initially awarded benefits, finding the employer failed to prove bona fide enforcement of its safety rules, as Glasgow was not disciplined for the previous incident and was subsequently rehired. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the employer did not demonstrate consistent, bona fide enforcement of its safety rules, which is a required element to establish its affirmative defenses. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationFall InjuryWillful MisconductSafety DeviceAffirmative DefenseBona Fide EnforcementEmployee SafetyEmployer LiabilityTennessee LawAppeals Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whitehead v. Holston Defense Corporation

Eoscoe E. Whitehead was awarded total and permanent disability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law due to pulmonary fibrosis, an occupational disease contracted during his employment at Holston Defense Corporation. The defendant appealed, challenging the compensability of the disease and alleging lack of proper notice. The Court affirmed the Chancellor's decree, finding substantial evidence of a causal connection between Whitehead's work conditions and his illness. The Court also determined that the employer's medical staff had actual knowledge of Whitehead's condition and concealed it from him. It broadly interpreted T.C.A. sec. 50-1101 to include Whitehead's ailment as a compensable occupational disease, overruling the assignments of error.

Occupational DiseasePulmonary FibrosisWorkers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityCausationEmployer KnowledgeConcealment of ConditionStatutory ConstructionNon-scheduled Occupational DiseaseIndustrial Exposure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Koch Foods, Inc.

This case involves a collective action brought by current and former hourly paid production workers (Plaintiffs) against Koch Foods, LLC, a chicken processing facility, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs claim they are not compensated for time spent retrieving, donning, doffing, and washing sanitary and protective gear, washing hands, and walking to/from work areas, nor for bona fide meal periods. The court considered cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted in part Koch Foods' motion for summary judgment regarding claims barred by FLSA § 203(o) and a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) for donning, doffing, and hand washing after April 13, 2006, ruling that these activities constitute "changing clothes" and "washing" of the person. However, the court denied summary judgment on whether these activities are "integral and indispensable" or "work" under the FLSA, finding material issues of fact. Additionally, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on the bona fide meal period claim and the de minimis doctrine defense, citing factual disputes regarding activities performed during meal breaks and the amount of uncompensated time. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liquidated damages was also denied due to unresolved factual issues and the lack of established actual damages. Finally, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for court-ordered mediation.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Wage and Hour LitigationSummary Judgment MotionsCollective Action LawsuitPortal-to-Portal Act ExclusionsDonning and Doffing TimeCompensable Work TimeUnpaid Meal BreaksCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Worker Protection
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gordon v. Buster

This case addresses whether ranch laborers are exempt from the Texas Workmen's Compensation Law as 'farm laborers.' The plaintiff in error, an employer, sought to apply common-law defenses against the defendant in error, a ranch laborer who sustained an injury. The lower courts ruled against the employer, denying common-law defenses on the basis that ranch laborers were not 'farm laborers' under the original act. However, the court, upon surveying dictionary definitions, concluded that 'farm laborers' broadly includes 'ranch laborers' for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act as it stood before its 1921 amendment. The court also noted a subsequent legislative amendment that explicitly added 'ranch laborers' to the exemptions, supporting this interpretation of original legislative intent. Consequently, the judgments against the plaintiff in error were reversed, and judgment was rendered in his favor, allowing the common-law defenses of contributory negligence and assumed risk.

Workmen's Compensation ActFarm LaborersRanch LaborersStatutory InterpretationExemption ClauseContributory NegligenceAssumed RiskLegislative IntentDefinitions of Farm and RanchAgricultural Industry
References
4
Case No. 2014-06-0015
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2014

Gonzales, Luciano / ABC Professional Tree Services

Employee Luciano Gonzales, a tree-trimmer, appealed a decision by the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims which denied his claim for temporary disability and medical benefits after he broke his leg falling from a tree. The employer, ABC Professional Tree Services, asserted the defense of willful misconduct and willful failure to use a safety device, claiming Gonzales violated a "100% tie-in" safety policy by cutting a limb before fully tying in with a climbing rope. Gonzales argued he was rushed by his foreman and cut his lanyard accidentally. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding the employer successfully proved the four elements of the willful misconduct defense: actual notice of the rule, understanding of the danger, bona fide enforcement, and lack of a valid excuse for the violation.

Workers' CompensationWillful MisconductSafety Device ViolationTree Trimmer InjuryWorkplace SafetyProximate CauseInterlocutory AppealEmployer DefenseEmployee TrainingForeman Influence
References
7
Case No. 2019-04-0113
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2019

Watts, Billy Keith v. Graphic Packaging, Intl.

Mr. Watts, a press operator for Graphic Packaging, Intl. (GPI), sustained extensive hand injuries on February 20, 2019, while attempting to remove excess paper from an active press. He underwent multiple surgeries and lost fingers. A post-injury drug test was positive for marijuana, though intoxication was not an affirmative defense. GPI denied benefits, asserting a willful misconduct defense under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-110(a)(1), arguing Mr. Watts violated a known safety rule against reaching into moving equipment. The Court found Mr. Watts' testimony regarding how the injury occurred lacked credibility and determined he had actual notice and understanding of the safety rule and its dangers. Despite allegations of a supervisor's lax enforcement, the Court found GPI demonstrated bona fide enforcement of its safety policies, especially after demoting the supervisor upon learning of his actions. Mr. Watts' justification for violating the rule, to maintain productivity, was deemed insufficient. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Watts' request for workers’ compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationWillful MisconductSafety ViolationPress Machine InjuryEmployee NegligenceEmployer DefenseInjury at WorkDrug Test PositiveSupervisor LiabilityIndustrial Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. 04-CR-156
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Taveras

Defendant Humberto Pepin Taveras faces a homicide trial where the government seeks the death penalty for the killings of two associates during a drug trafficking dispute. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein addresses the admissibility of a self-defense claim, emphasizing heightened protections for defendants in capital cases and allowing more leeway for evidence favoring the defendant. The defense intends to establish self-defense through witness statements suggesting the victims, José Rosario and Carlos Madrid, had threatened Pepin and his family. The prosecution disputes this, arguing Pepin deliberately sought out and murdered the victims, thereby precluding a self-defense claim as he initiated the confrontations. The court ultimately rules that Pepin will be permitted to argue self-defense, and related evidence will be allowed, with a self-defense instruction to the jury contingent on sufficient proof being presented.

Self-defenseCapital punishmentHomicide trialEvidentiary rulesDrug traffickingDeath penaltyJury instructionsCriminal lawDue processReasonable doubt
References
45
Case No. 2012 WL 3756270
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2012

American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case involves the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a pro-Israeli advocacy group, challenging the Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) refusal to display a political advertisement on buses. The ad, which called for support for Israel and opposition to Jihad, was rejected by the MTA for violating its 'no-demeaning standard,' which prohibits ads demeaning individuals or groups based on characteristics like religion or national origin. AFDI sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the standard violated their First Amendment rights. The court found that the MTA's standard was content-based because it selectively prohibited demeaning speech only for certain protected characteristics, while allowing it for others. Consequently, the court granted AFDI's motion for a preliminary injunction, deeming the MTA's standard unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPolitical AdvertisingPublic Forum DoctrineDesignated Public ForumContent-Based RestrictionStrict ScrutinyPreliminary InjunctionMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityAdvertising Standards
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 5,045 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