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
Nov 24, 1993

C & H NATIONWIDE, INC. v. Thompson

This case concerns the allocation of liability among defendants under Texas's Comparative Responsibility Law in a wrongful death action. The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the lower court's judgment regarding the calculation of prejudgment interest, the sufficiency of evidence for lost inheritance damages, and the principles of contribution among jointly and severally liable defendants. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case, holding that prejudgment interest applies to the entire judgment including future damages, and found no evidence to support the award of lost inheritance damages. It also clarified the rules for contribution among defendants.

Wrongful DeathComparative ResponsibilityPrejudgment InterestFuture DamagesLost InheritanceSettlementContributionTort LawStatutory InterpretationDue Process
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kroger Co. v. Keng

Sonja Keng sued her employer, Kroger Company, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance, for work-related injuries after falling from a ladder. Keng alleged Kroger's negligence caused her injuries, while Kroger sought to introduce a comparative-responsibility question to the jury, arguing Keng's own conduct contributed to the incident. The trial court refused Kroger's request, finding Kroger negligent and awarding Keng damages. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding the comparative-responsibility statute does not apply to Keng's claim and that non-subscribing employers are prohibited from using employee negligence as a defense. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Texas Labor Code § 406.033 precludes a finding of contributory negligence, which is a prerequisite for determining comparative responsibility, thus denying a non-subscribing employer a jury question on an employee's alleged comparative responsibility.

Comparative NegligenceContributory NegligenceWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer LiabilityEmployee InjuryStatutory ConstructionCommon-Law DefensesJury QuestionTexas Labor CodeProximate Cause
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walter Ray Culp, III v. Board of Professional Responsibility for the Supreme Court of Tennessee

Attorney Walter Ray Culp, III, previously suspended for five years due to an attempted extortion conviction, sought reinstatement of his law license. The extortion involved brokering witness testimony for a substantial fee. After serving a nineteen-month prison sentence and the five-year suspension, Culp petitioned for reinstatement. A hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility and the Chancery Court for Williamson County both denied his request. The denials were based on Culp's failure to demonstrate moral qualifications, legal competency, and that his reinstatement would not harm the integrity of the bar or public interest. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed these decisions, citing Culp's lack of credibility, his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his actions, and the severe nature of his original crime.

Attorney disciplineLaw license reinstatementProfessional misconductAttempted extortionMoral qualificationsLegal competencyCredibility assessmentJudicial reviewAppellate decisionLegal ethics violation
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2023

Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.

Tray Jackson, an emergency medical technician (EMT), initiated a class action lawsuit against Citywide Mobile Response Corp., alleging multiple violations of the New York State Labor Law and NYCRR. Jackson claimed that the defendant failed to provide full wages, including overtime and spread of hours pay, and illegally deducted costs for mandatory uniforms and supplies from employee pay, resulting in wages below the minimum wage. The plaintiff sought class certification for a proposed class of approximately 200 current and former EMTs, paramedics, and drivers. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, presided over by Justice Fidel E. Gomez, granted the motion for class certification, finding that all statutory requirements under CPLR 901 and 902 were satisfied. The court certified a class comprising all individuals working for the defendant as drivers, EMTs, or paramedics in New York between December 30, 2015, and August 15, 2022.

Class Action CertificationLabor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementMinimum WageSpread of Hours PayWage NoticesIllegal Wage DeductionsEMT
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. v. Cernat

This case involves an appeal by Pilgrim's Pride Corporation concerning a rear-end collision. The plaintiffs, David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu, sustained injuries when their towed truck was hit by a Pilgrim's Pride vehicle. The jury found both parties partially responsible. The appeals court modified the trial court's judgment, ruling that the initial calculation of damages under comparative negligence statutes was erroneous and should be reduced based on the defendant's liability percentage. However, the court affirmed the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury's awards for the plaintiffs' lost earning capacity and future medical damages.

Comparative negligencePersonal injuryMotor vehicle accidentRear-end collisionDamagesLost earning capacityFuture medical expensesFactual sufficiencyLegal sufficiencyTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
29
Case No. 13-00-785-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

Josephine De La Garza v. George H. Beckett

Appellant Josephine De La Garza appealed a jury verdict awarding her personal injury damages resulting from an automobile accident. She raised five issues on appeal, including alleged errors in limiting voir dire, refusing expert witness testimony, denying a jury instruction regarding the transportation code, and challenging the factual and legal sufficiency of medical damages and comparative responsibility findings. She also contested the denial of her motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the voir dire limits, that the expert witness error was not preserved, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on damages and comparative responsibility.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryVoir Dire LimitationExpert Witness ExclusionMedical Damages SufficiencyJury Instruction ErrorNegligence Per SeComparative ResponsibilityMotion for New TrialAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

The Kroger Co. v. Keng

The Kroger Company appealed a jury judgment awarding Sonja Keng $30,000 for injuries sustained in a workers’ compensation nonsubscriber case. Kroger argued the trial court erred by not submitting a comparative responsibility issue and that evidence was insufficient to prove negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding ample evidence of Kroger's negligence in providing an unsafe work environment and inadequate assistance. It also ruled that comparative responsibility statutes do not apply to nonsubscriber workers’ compensation cases, as Texas Labor Code § 406.033 explicitly bars common law defenses like contributory negligence for such employers. Therefore, the jury's verdict was upheld.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceNonsubscriber EmployerComparative ResponsibilityContributory NegligenceAssumption of RiskFellow Servant DoctrinePersonal InjuryTexas LawAppellate Review
References
34
Case No. 06-05-00095-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2006

Pilgrim`s Pride Corporation and David Franklin Sharp, Jr. v. David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu

This case involves a motor vehicle accident where David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu were rear-ended by a truck driven by David Franklin Sharp, Jr., for Pilgrim's Pride Corporation. The jury found Pilgrim's Pride 50% responsible and each plaintiff 25% responsible. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's application of comparative negligence statutes (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 33.012, 33.013). It found that the trial court erred in calculating damages and modified the judgment, reducing the awards for Cernat and Ciupitu to correctly apply the comparative negligence principles. The court also affirmed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's awards for lost earning capacity and future medical damages.

Motor Vehicle AccidentComparative NegligenceDamages CalculationAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyLost Earning CapacityFuture Medical ExpensesPersonal InjuryStatutory Interpretation
References
28
Case No. 04-12-00712-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2013

Tomas Perez v. Smart Corporation, Inc. D/B/A Smart Companies, Inc.

Tomas Perez sued Smart Corporation for negligence after falling from a ladder while painting a building, sustaining permanently disabling injuries. A jury found Smart 45% responsible and Perez 55% responsible, leading to a take-nothing judgment against Perez due to comparative negligence rules. Perez appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted an OSHA investigation file which found no violations by Smart. The appellate court agreed that admitting the OSHA file was an error but deemed it harmless, concluding that ample other evidence supported the jury's finding of greater responsibility on Perez's part. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

NegligenceComparative NegligenceOSHA RegulationsEvidentiary RulingHarm AnalysisLadder SafetySubcontractor LiabilityFall ProtectionExpert TestimonyJury Verdict
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,833 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