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

Bradford v. Bradford

Jeff Bradford appealed a default judgment in a divorce suit, contending he was entitled to notice of the trial setting due to his prior appearance. The trial court had denied his motion for a new trial. The appellate court determined that Bradford had indeed appeared in the lawsuit through his participation in temporary hearings, agreeing to temporary orders, and providing testimony. Consequently, the court found he was entitled to due process notice of the default judgment hearing, which he did not receive. The appellate court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Bradford's motion for new trial, thus reversing its judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Divorce CaseDefault Judgment AppealDue Process ViolationNotice RequirementAppearance in CourtMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReversalRemand for New TrialTexas Civil Procedure
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradford v. Manney

E. E. Manney sued B. R. Bradford, operating as Bradford Transfer Company, for damages to a Linotype printing machine. The machine was dropped and damaged by Bradford's employees while being moved. A jury awarded Manney $700, and Bradford appealed, claiming excessive damages and error in denying a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's damage assessment and upheld the denial of a new trial due to the defendant's lack of diligence and proper pleading. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Property DamageNegligenceLinotype MachineAppellate ReviewJury FindingsDamages AssessmentNew Trial MotionSufficiency of EvidenceDue DiligenceExpert Witness
References
7
Case No. 02A01-9801-CH-00006
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1998

J.C. Bradford v. Southern Realty

This case involves J.C. Bradford & Co. appealing the dismissal of its complaint and the judgment awarded to Southern Realty Partners and Weston Management Company on their counterclaims. Bradford sued Southern and Weston for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act regarding an "expense stop" in a lease agreement for an office building. Bradford alleged that Weston, acting as an agent for Southern, misrepresented the estimated operating expenses for the building, leading to a significantly higher actual cost. The trial court dismissed Bradford's complaint and awarded judgment to Southern on its counterclaim for additional rent, interest, late fees, and attorneys' fees, after concluding the proceedings based on opening statements. The appellate court vacated and remanded the case, holding that trial judges are not authorized to involuntarily dismiss an action solely based on opening statements of counsel, especially given the complexity of the allegations and the need for witness credibility assessment.

Fraudulent MisrepresentationNegligent MisrepresentationTennessee Consumer Protection ActLease AgreementExpense StopOperating ExpensesSummary JudgmentInvoluntary DismissalOpening StatementsStipulations of Fact
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Dallas v. Bradford

Shirley S. Bradford, a public health nurse for the City of Dallas, sustained injuries in an automobile accident while traveling to her principal work address. She sought worker's compensation benefits, claiming she was in the course of her employment. The trial court initially ruled in her favor, but the City of Dallas appealed. The appellate court examined whether Bradford's transportation was paid for by the employer or if she was directed to proceed from one place to another under her employment contract, as per Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8309, § 1b. The court concluded that she was merely on her way to work and not yet engaged in her duties, nor was her travel to work covered by employer payment or direction. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding her injuries were not incurred in the course of employment.

Worker's CompensationCourse of EmploymentCommuting RuleTravel ReimbursementEmployer DirectionPersonal Vehicle UseTexas LawAutomobile AccidentPublic Health NurseAppeal
References
12
Case No. 07-01-0086-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2002

Beach Exploration, Inc. v. Bradford L. Moore and McGowan & McGowan, P.C.

Beach Exploration, Inc. challenged a summary judgment ruling in a legal malpractice action against Bradford L. Moore and McGowan & McGowan, P.C. Beach contended the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on limitations, arguing its cause of action did not accrue within two years and the discovery rule applied. Beach also claimed genuine issues of material fact existed regarding proximate causation of damages by Moore's negligent act. The lawsuit stemmed from Moore's 1986 title opinion which failed to disclose Texaco's mineral interest, leading to a settlement payment by Beach in a later suit. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Beach had sufficient notice of the alleged negligence by January 22, 1993, well outside the two-year statute of limitations.

Legal MalpracticeSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleOil and Gas LawMineral InterestsTitle OpinionActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradford v. Travelers Indemnity Co.

The plaintiff, Herman Bradford, appealed the chancellor's award of 35% permanent partial disability following a back injury sustained on the job. Bradford, a 55-year-old illiterate ink mixer, underwent spinal fusion surgery. Medical and vocational experts assessed his impairment between 19% anatomically and 100% vocationally. The Supreme Court found the trial court erred by giving undue weight to Bradford's post-injury return to work in its disability assessment. Considering his age, limited education, medical restrictions, and non-transferable job skills, the Court increased his permanent partial disability award to 50% to the body as a whole.

Permanent Partial DisabilityVocational DisabilityMedical Expert TestimonyVocational Expert TestimonyImpairment RatingSpinal FusionLifting InjuryReturn to WorkEarning CapacityAge Factor
References
4
Case No. 2020-06-1525
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2021

Bradford, Charisse v. Western Express, Inc.

Charisse Bradford, a truck driver for Western Express, Inc., sought benefits for a work injury sustained while forcefully turning a rusted crank, which she alleged led to neck, back, and hip pain. Western Express denied the claim, asserting she reported pain solely from sleeping in her truck and no acute trauma. The Court, however, credited Ms. Bradford's consistent testimony and found her injury arose primarily from employment, also noting that sleeping in the truck was a normal incident of her job. Crucially, the Court accepted Dr. Sean Lotterer's medical opinion on causation, determining that Ms. Bradford's work aggravated a pre-existing condition, while dismissing a physician assistant's conflicting opinion due to scope limitations. Consequently, the Court granted benefits, ordering Western Express to provide a panel of orthopedic specialists and pay temporary disability benefits, additionally referring the employer for a penalty review due to non-compliance with panel selection rules.

Truck Driver InjuryWork Injury CausationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Panel SelectionExpedited HearingPreexisting Condition AggravationEmployer Non-CompliancePhysician Assistant ScopeTennessee Workers' Compensation ClaimsWage Statement Dispute
References
3
Case No. ADJ4423738 (OAK 0328993)
Regular
Sep 16, 2013

ANDRE BRADFORD vs. LABOR READY; ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Andre Bradford's petition for reconsideration because it was not timely filed. A petition for reconsideration can only be filed from a final order that determines substantive rights or liabilities. Interlocutory orders, such as those related to evidence, discovery, or trial setting, are not final and thus not subject to reconsideration. Bradford's petition was therefore dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionNon-FinalAggrieved PartyDisqualification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradford v. Logan's Roadhouse, Inc.

This case is a proposed nationwide collective action brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against Logan's Roadhouse, Inc., LRI Holdings, Inc., and Roadhouse Holding, Inc. Plaintiffs Carey Bradford and Cody Bolen, along with over a hundred opt-in plaintiffs, allege that LRI failed to properly compensate its tipped employees. The alleged violations include requiring tipped employees to perform non-tip producing work for sub-minimum wages, working "off-the-clock," and being forced to report "phantom tips" to avoid supplemental wage contributions. The plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a nationwide class of current and former tipped employees. The court granted the motion for conditional certification in part, finding that the plaintiffs made a "modest factual showing" that they were "similarly situated" and presented sufficient evidence of common FLSA-violating practices across LRI's restaurants in multiple states. The court also ordered LRI to provide names and addresses of potential class members for notice but denied requests for email addresses, social security numbers, and telephone numbers, as well as premature equitable tolling of the statute of limitations. The parties were directed to confer on the notice and consent protocol.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Tipped EmployeesWage and Hour ViolationsCollective ActionConditional CertificationOff-the-Clock WorkMinimum WageOvertime PayEmployer PracticesClass Action Notice
References
36
Case No. 2021-08-0418
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2022

Edwards-Bradford, Patrece v. Kelloggs USA, LLC

Patrece Edwards-Bradford filed a claim for permanent disability benefits following an alleged work-related assault at Kelloggs USA, LLC in June 2019. The employer disputed the physical altercation and compensability. Treating physicians, Dr. Parsioon and Dr. Murrell, found no discrete injury related to the incident, attributing symptoms to pre-existing degenerative changes, and released her at maximum medical improvement with no impairment. Subsequently, an independent medical evaluation by Dr. Apurva Dalal diagnosed degenerative lumbar stenosis with radiculopathy, linking it to an aggravation of pre-existing arthritis and assigning a 7% impairment rating. The Court, while finding the employee's testimony credible regarding the incident, ultimately denied her claim, ruling that she failed to rebut the statutory presumption of correctness given to the treating physicians' causation and impairment opinions. The decision emphasized Dr. Dalal's inability to demonstrate how the work injury advanced the pre-existing condition or caused a new, distinct injury.

Workers' CompensationWorkplace InjuryAssault ClaimPermanent DisabilityCausation DisputeMedical EvidenceTreating PhysicianIndependent Medical ExaminationDegenerative ConditionLumbar Stenosis
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 28 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