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

FLOTO v. Manhattan Woods Golf Enterprises, LLC

Plaintiff was fired from Manhattan Woods Golf Club after taking a day off for his dying mother's emergency brain surgery. He sued for FMLA violation and breach of contract. A jury awarded him damages for both claims. Defendants subsequently moved for judgment as a matter of law, arguing the plaintiff failed to adduce evidence that he qualified for FMLA leave. The court granted the defendants' motion regarding the FMLA claim (Count I), finding insufficient evidence that the plaintiff was 'needed to care for' his mother as per FMLA regulations, and dismissed the claim. The motion for reduction of FMLA damages became moot. However, the court denied the defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the breach of contract claim (Count II), upholding the jury's finding that the employer lacked 'reasonable cause' to terminate the plaintiff's employment.

FMLABreach of ContractJudgment as a Matter of LawEmployment LawEmployee TerminationFamily and Medical LeavePsychological CareDamagesPost-trial MotionsRule 50
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1999

Miller v. Long Island Rail Road

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for personal injuries. The defendant, Long Island Rail Road, and third-party defendants, Gary Nobile and Joseph Miller, appealed various aspects of the jury's verdict from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The appellate court modified the judgment by vacating the awards for past and future pain and suffering. It ordered a new trial on these specific damages unless the plaintiff agrees to a significant reduction in the awarded amounts for pain and suffering. If the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced damages, the judgment, as amended, is affirmed, otherwise, a new trial on those causes of action will proceed.

Personal InjuryDamagesJury VerdictAppealPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesLost EarningsContributionSufficiency of EvidenceConsistency of Verdicts
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laurie Marie M. v. Jeffrey T. M.

This appeal concerns a civil action for intrafamilial child sex abuse, where an 11-year-old stepdaughter was sexually abused by her stepfather. The trial court found the defendant liable for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, with the jury awarding $200,000 in compensatory damages and $275,000 in punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of liability for battery but deemed both compensatory and punitive damage awards excessive. Consequently, the court ordered a new trial on damages unless the plaintiff agrees to a reduction of compensatory damages to $100,000 and punitive damages to $100,000. If the plaintiff stipulates to these reductions, the judgment, as amended, will be affirmed.

Child sex abuseIntrafamilial abuseBatteryIntentional infliction of emotional distressPunitive damagesCompensatory damagesExcessive verdictDamages reductionAppellate reviewStepfather abuse
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weeks Marine, Inc. v. Salinas

Jose J. Salinas, an employee of Weeks Marine, Inc., was injured while working as a mate on the dredge M/V BTD II, sustaining back injuries while carrying batteries. A jury found Weeks Marine negligent and the M/V BTD II unseaworthy, awarding Salinas compensatory damages and cure. Weeks Marine appealed, challenging various findings including Salinas's seaman status and the amount of damages. Salinas cross-appealed the reduction of his compensatory damages due to contributory negligence. The appellate court reversed the thirty percent reduction in damages, rendering judgment for Salinas for $1,585,000.00 in compensatory damages and $87,000.00 in cure, and affirmed the remainder of the trial court's judgment.

Seaman statusJones Act claimFELA standardVessel unseaworthinessEmployer negligenceCompensatory damagesMaintenance and cureFuture economic lossMental anguish awardContributory negligence
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rogers

Carl Rogers died from mesothelioma after working for The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. His family sued Goodyear for gross negligence, alleging asbestos exposure at work caused his illness. The jury found Goodyear grossly negligent and awarded exemplary damages. Goodyear appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence and causation, and arguing for a reduction in exemplary damages due to the application of a statutory cap. The appellate court affirmed the findings of gross negligence and causation, but sustained Goodyear's third issue, suggesting a remittitur of exemplary damages. The court found insufficient evidence for the full amount of pecuniary losses for the daughters and largely for the wife, leading to a reduction in the maximum exemplary damages.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesStatutory CapPecuniary LossCausationWorkers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. NO. 12-17-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2018

Larry Lott, D/B/A Larry Lott Interiors v. Bobby Brown

Larry Lott, an interior designer, appealed a trial court's judgment awarding damages to Bobby Brown for breach of contract and quantum meruit. Lott initially hired Brown for specialized painting and plaster work, with the scope of work expanding over eighteen months. Brown ceased work due to Lott's arbitrary invoice reductions and sued for damages, while Lott counterclaimed for breach. The jury found both parties breached, but Lott breached first, awarding Brown $28,560 in damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the court found legally insufficient evidence for quantum meruit recovery as all work was covered by contract. For breach of contract, the court affirmed findings regarding Lott's breach due to invoice reductions. However, the court found legal insufficiency for damages related to an uncompleted Stevie Nicks mural and a conceded bed frame item, suggesting a remittitur of $15,500.

Contract LawQuantum MeruitBreach of ContractDamagesLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyRemittiturJury VerdictConstruction ContractAppellate Review
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sims v. Stewart

William Kenneth Sims, a Deputy Sheriff, was injured in 1993 after being struck by Eddie Stewart's vehicle. Sims and his wife, Edna, sought damages under their uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM) policy with Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Company (TFMIC). The core dispute was over whether TFMIC could credit the full $61,862.57 in workers' compensation benefits paid to Sims, or that amount minus the $25,000 settlement Sims received from Stewart's liability insurer. The trial court ruled TFMIC was entitled to a credit of $36,862.57 ($61,862.57 - $25,000) and ordered TFMIC to pay Sims $63,137.43. The appellate court found that the issue of damages was not properly assessed by the trial court, as the stipulation covered everything but damages, which is crucial for determining the reduction. Therefore, the appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the amount of damages Sims is entitled to and then apply the policy reductions.

uninsured motorist coverageunderinsured motorist coverageworkers' compensation offsetinsurance policy interpretationsubrogation rightsdamages assessmentcredit calculationappellate reviewtrial court errorcase remand
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of State of the Pennsylvania v. Moore

This appeal addresses whether a worker's compensation carrier is entitled to a proportionate reduction in supplemental income benefits (SIBs) equal to the percentage of reduction for impairment income benefits (IIBs) for a prior compensable injury under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Appellant, Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, sought an 11/17ths reduction in Appellee John H. Moore's SIBs, matching the reduction applied to his IIBs for a previous back injury. A hearing officer granted the IIB reduction but denied the SIB reduction. The trial court upheld this decision. The appellate court reversed, holding that Texas Labor Code § 408.084 is unambiguous and mandates that both IIBs and SIBs be reduced by the same proportion when contribution is warranted for a prior injury. Consequently, Appellant is entitled to an 11/17ths reduction of Appellee’s supplemental income benefits.

Workers' CompensationSupplemental Income Benefits (SIBs)Impairment Income Benefits (IIBs)Prior Compensable InjuryProportionate ReductionStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommission Appeals Panel
References
24
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,427 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