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
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

This case concerns the determination of compensatory damages and front pay for Plaintiff Sharon Pollard against Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. The Court previously found DuPont liable for Title VII discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a damages hearing in July 2003, the Court concluded Plaintiff could not return to work due to severe anxiety and depression stemming from harassment and DuPont's insufficient response. The Court awarded Plaintiff $1,004,374.00 in front pay through age 65, determining she had adequately mitigated her damages. Additionally, $950,000.00 in compensatory damages was awarded for emotional distress, with a future hearing scheduled to determine punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentCompensatory DamagesFront PayIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderMitigation of DamagesExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giannetti v. Darling Delaware Carting Co.

The plaintiff suffered severe burns while employed at Arby's. During the damages phase of the trial, the defendant sought to introduce safety gloves as evidence to mitigate damages, arguing that their use would have prevented or lessened the injuries. The plaintiff objected, contending that such evidence was improper for the damages phase and that 'seat belt' precedents were not applicable due to the lack of a statutory mandate for safety gloves. The court, drawing an analogy to seat belt cases, ruled that safety gloves could be admitted as evidence for mitigation of damages if the defendant proves their availability, the reasonableness of their use, and a causal link between non-use and injuries. This decision effectively allows the introduction of pre-accident conduct to mitigate damages in certain circumstances beyond statutory mandates.

Mitigation of DamagesSafety GlovesSeat Belt DefensePersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentEvidence AdmissibilityPre-accident ConductEmployer LiabilityReasonable Prudent Person StandardTort Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hygeia Dairy Co. v. Gonzalez

Chief Justice Hardberger dissents from the majority's decision, which concluded that the trial court erred by not instructing the jury on mitigation. Hardberger argues that for a mitigation instruction to be warranted, Hygeia needed to prove the specific amount by which Gonzalez's damages were increased due to his alleged failure to mitigate. Citing various precedents, the dissent asserts that Hygeia failed to meet this burden by not providing evidence of the percentage of cattle that would be unavoidably lost or have decreased value even with a successful herd management program for bovine leukosis and Johne's disease. The dissenting opinion emphasizes that the evidence presented could not support a total mitigation finding and lacked the specific data required for a jury to make a reasoned calculation of mitigatable damages.

Mitigation of DamagesJury InstructionsBurden of ProofUnliquidated DamagesCattle DiseasesBovine LeukosisJohne's DiseaseHerd ManagementAppellate LawTexas Law
References
18
Case No. 01-CV-1868
Regular Panel Decision

Picinich v. United Parcel Service

Plaintiff Richard M. Picinich sued United Parcel Service (UPS) and individual defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL), alleging failure to provide reasonable accommodation and discriminatory discharge. This case came before the court on remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which had affirmed liability but vacated a prior finding that Picinich failed to mitigate damages. Upon reconsideration, the court determined that the defendants failed to meet their burden to prove that Picinich did not make reasonable efforts to mitigate his damages. Consequently, the court amended its previous award, granting Picinich additional back pay, front pay until he reaches age 65, compensatory damages, and pension credits.

Americans with Disabilities ActNew York Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateDiscriminatory DischargeMitigation of DamagesBack PayFront PayCompensatory DamagesPension Credits
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2017

Office of the Attorney General of Texas v. Laura G. Rodriguez

Laura G. Rodriguez sued her former employer, the Office of the Attorney General of Texas (OAG), for retaliatory discharge under the Texas Whistleblower Act. A jury found in Rodriguez's favor, awarding her actual damages and attorney's fees. The OAG appealed, contending the evidence was insufficient to prove her whistleblower report was the 'but for' cause of her termination and that she failed to mitigate damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding ample evidence, including negative attitudes from decision-makers, disparate treatment of similarly-situated employees, and false stated reasons for termination, to support the jury's finding of causation. The court also concluded the OAG failed to meet its burden in proving Rodriguez did not mitigate her damages regarding the front-pay award.

Whistleblower ActRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawCausationMitigation of DamagesFront PayBack PayTexas Government CodeInsurance Fraud AllegationEmployee Termination
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kee

Tan-ja Kee was fired by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in response to filing and settling a workers' compensation claim. Kee sued Wal-Mart for discriminatory firing under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307c, seeking actual and exemplary damages. A jury awarded Kee $4,500 in actual damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages, finding Wal-Mart acted with malice. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the recoverability of exemplary damages and the sufficiency of evidence for malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing precedent that exemplary damages are recoverable and concluding that the jury's finding of malice and the damage award were supported by sufficient evidence and not excessive.

discriminatory firingworkers' compensationexemplary damagesmaliceTexas lawretaliatory dischargeemployee rightsemployer liabilityjury verdictappellate review
References
5
Case No. 1:06-cv-01137
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2009

Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors

Plaintiff Douglas Baker filed a civil action against Defendant Windsor Republic Doors (WRD) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tennessee Handicap Act (THA), and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. A jury found WRD liable for both claims, awarding Baker back pay and compensatory damages. The Court granted judgment for WRD on the discrimination claim but sustained the retaliation claim. This order addresses the availability of compensatory damages for ADA retaliation claims, an issue with conflicting legal authority among federal courts. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, concluded that compensatory damages are available for ADA retaliation claims and found that the THRA and THA also provide alternative grounds for sustaining the award. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding compensatory damages was denied, and the jury's $29,500 compensatory award was upheld.

Americans with Disabilities ActADA RetaliationTennessee Handicap ActTennessee Human Rights ActCompensatory DamagesJury AwardStatutory InterpretationDisability DiscriminationCivil RightsEmployment Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Missouri Valley, Inc. v. Putman

Haskell B. Putman, Jr., an employee of Missouri Valley, Inc., died after falling through an unbarricaded hole at a construction site in Potter County. His beneficiaries, including his widow Juanita Lucille Putman, brought a wrongful death action seeking exemplary damages from Missouri Valley, Inc., alleging gross negligence. The jury found Missouri Valley, Inc. guilty of gross negligence and awarded $50,000 in exemplary damages. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the gross negligence findings. The court clarified that Texas law requires an "entire want of care" or "conscious indifference" to justify exemplary damages, which was not met given Missouri Valley's established safety program, thereby negating the recovery of exemplary damages.

Wrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Construction AccidentAppellate ReviewConscious IndifferenceSafety Program
References
7
Case No. 08-85-00347-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 1986

Azar Nut Co. v. Caille

Lorretta Caille sued her former employer, Azar Nut Company, for wrongful discharge, claiming she was terminated for filing a worker's compensation claim after an on-the-job injury. A jury awarded Caille actual damages of $167,464.00 and exemplary damages of $175,000.00. Azar Nut Company appealed, raising points of error regarding the recoverability of exemplary damages, jury instructions on causation and mitigation, and the admission of certain evidence. The Court of Appeals of Texas, El Paso, affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that exemplary damages are recoverable in wrongful discharge cases under Article 8307c and that the jury instructions were adequate. A dissenting opinion argued against the inclusion of exemplary damages under the statute.

Wrongful DischargeWorker's CompensationExemplary DamagesActual DamagesMitigation of DamagesStatutory InterpretationJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewEmployment LawCollateral Source Rule
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 4,164 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