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. 01-03-00984-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2005

AAA Office Coffee Service, Inc. v. Debra K. Hansen, Debbie Clodfelter and Rick Clodfelter

AAA Office Coffee Service, Inc. (Appellant) challenged a trial court's judgment awarding damages to Debra K. Hansen, Debbie Clodfelter, and Rick Clodfelter (Appellees) for sexual harassment, retaliation, and employment discrimination. The jury found that Hansen and Debbie Clodfelter were subjected to sexual harassment by AAA, that a discriminatory practice motivated AAA's decision to fire them, and that AAA acted with malice or reckless indifference. AAA contended the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred in denying its motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding sexual harassment, lack of employer excuse, retaliation, and exemplary damages, ultimately overruling all points of error.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationEmployment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentExemplary DamagesJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceSupervisor MisconductEmployer LiabilityAffirmative Defense
References
33
Case No. 14-15-00628-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2016

Debbie Pattillo v. Sylvia Franco

Debbie Pattillo sued Sylvia Franco for personal injuries sustained in a rear-end automobile collision. Franco stipulated to liability, and the case proceeded to trial on damages. The jury returned a verdict awarding Pattillo no damages, and the trial court entered a final judgment accordingly. Pattillo appealed, arguing the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on circumstantial evidence and the eggshell-skull rule. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in excluding the requested instructions and concluding that any error did not probably cause an improper judgment.

Personal InjuryAutomobile CollisionDamagesJury InstructionsCircumstantial EvidenceEggshell Skull RuleAppellate ReviewTrial Court ErrorPre-existing ConditionMedical Treatment
References
12
Case No. 03-99-00852-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2000

Shamrock Communications, Inc. D/B/A KJFK and Bill Simonson v. Debby Wilie

Debby Wilie sued Shamrock Communications, Inc. d/b/a/ KJFK and Bill Simonson for defamation and invasion of privacy following a radio broadcast discussing alleged events from her private birthday party. The jury found both defendants liable, awarding actual and exemplary damages. On appeal, Shamrock raised eight points of error, including claims regarding insufficient evidence for malice and mental anguish, defective jury questions, and erroneous admission of hearsay. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on malice and mental anguish, and no reversible error in the jury instructions or evidentiary rulings.

DefamationInvasion of PrivacyRadio BroadcastMaliceExemplary DamagesJury InstructionsMental AnguishHearsayAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
70
Case No. 09-11-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2012

Robert Bean v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Phillip W. Smith and Debbie K. Garrett

Robert Bean appealed the trial court's dismissal of his lawsuit against Texas Mutual Insurance Company and two adjusters, Phillip W. Smith and Debbie K. Garrett. Bean's suit alleged mishandling of his worker's compensation claim and sought damages for common law and statutory bad faith claims. The defendants argued Bean failed to exhaust administrative remedies. While the appeal was pending, the Texas Supreme Court issued a ruling in Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ruttiger, which held that the Workers' Compensation Act's administrative process provides the sole remedy for such claims, thereby precluding judicial remedies under the Insurance Code or common law. In light of this controlling precedent, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, concluding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear Bean's claims.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ClaimsBad FaithAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTexas Supreme CourtAppellate ReviewClaim HandlingInsurance Code
References
6
Case No. ADJ9506148
Regular
Nov 05, 2019

RAUL GARCIA vs. RELIABLE RESOURCES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of sanctions imposed on Citywide Scanning Services, Ani Balian, and Debbie Ketchens. The WCAB found that Balian and Ketchens lacked sufficient notice regarding the sanctions petition, thus reversing their personal liability. While Citywide's actions were deemed frivolous, the issue of attorney's fees for the defendant's representatives was deferred for further proceedings. The matter was returned to the trial level for these additional proceedings.

WCABCitywide Scanning ServicesAni BalianDebbie KetchensPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrdersWCJfrivolousbad faithsanctions
References
14
Case No. 2016-06-1889
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2017

Rule, Debbie v. naviHealth

This case involves Debbie Rule, a health service coordinator for naviHealth, who filed a claim for a work-related injury. She alleged an allergic reaction to a fragrance burner at work, followed by a fall at an urgent care clinic after experiencing dizziness. The Court denied her claim, finding that she failed to satisfy her burden of proof that the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. The judge considered the possibility that her fall was idiopathic due to ill-fitting shoes and found a conflict in testimony regarding her dizziness, concluding the allergic reaction was not more than fifty percent responsible for her knee injury.

Injury CompensabilityWorkplace FallAllergic Reaction InjuryKnee ArthroscopyCausation DisputeIdiopathic Injury DefenseMedical Testimony ConflictBurden of Proof EmployeeDenial of BenefitsFragrance Burner Incident
References
4
Case No. ADJ6777284, ADJ6777302, ADJ7465280
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

DEBBIE DAY vs. ALBERTSONS, SEDWICK CMS

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved three cumulative trauma injuries sustained by applicant Debbie Day while employed by Albertsons and SaveMart Supermarkets. The arbitrator issued a Findings, Award, and Order, and subsequently a Report on Petition for Reconsideration. The Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, adopting the arbitrator's report which clarified that SaveMart/Pegasus's claims for contribution and reimbursement in earlier injury years were moot as their liability stemmed solely from the 2009 injury. The arbitrator's Opinion on Decision was amended to reflect this clarification regarding SaveMart/Pegasus's sole liability for the 2009 injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationArbitrator's ReportAmended OpinionCumulative Trauma InjuriesDate of InjuryContributionReimbursementSaveMart SupermarketsAlbertsons
References
3
Case No. 2016-08-0270
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2016

Morgan, Debbie v. Macy's Corporate Services

Debbie Morgan, a Macy's sales associate, sustained a right shoulder and neck injury after a fall. The authorized physician, Dr. Samuel Schroerlucke, recommended C4-C6 ACDF surgery. Macy's denied the surgery based on a utilization review by Dr. Robert G. Winans, asserting it was not medically necessary. Ms. Morgan filed a Request for Expedited Hearing for medical benefits. The Court, presided over by Judge Allen Phillips, determined it had the authority to review issues of medical necessity, citing common law and statutory provisions. The Court found that Dr. Schroerlucke's recommendation for surgery was presumed medically necessary, and Macy's failed to rebut this presumption with clear and convincing evidence. The Court noted Dr. Schroerlucke's consistent documentation of findings (positive Spurling's sign, decreased bicep reflexes, radicular complaints) which aligned with the ODG requirements for the surgical procedure. Consequently, the Court ordered Macy's to pay for the recommended surgery and denied Macy's subsequent motion to expand its defenses to include an idiopathic injury.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingUtilization ReviewMedical NecessitySpinal StenosisCervical Fusion SurgeryC4-C6 ACDFSpurling's SignRadiculopathy
References
5
Case No. ADJ8427389
Regular
Nov 04, 2013

DEBBIE LANG vs. INSIGHT INVESTMENTS, LLC., ONEBEACON AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted applicant Debbie Lang's Petition for Reconsideration in Case No. ADJ8427389. This action was taken because the WCAB requires more time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues to ensure a just decision. Further proceedings may be ordered as necessary. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the WCAB Commissioners' office, not district offices, and e-filing is prohibited during this period.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationStatutory time constraintsFactual issuesLegal issuesJust and reasoned decisionFurther proceedingsOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemAnaheim District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Forrest Construction Co. v. Laughlin

This action involves claims arising from the construction of a residence in Williamson County for James and Debbie Laughlin by Forrest Construction Company, LLC. Forrest Construction filed a breach-of-contract action against Mr. Laughlin and a quantum meruit action against Mrs. Laughlin, claiming Mr. Laughlin breached the contract by failing to pay. The Laughlins counterclaimed for negligent construction, gross negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act. The trial court initially found Mr. Laughlin in material breach, but also awarded damages to the Laughlins for negligent construction. On appeal, the Court found that Forrest Construction was the first to materially breach the contract by failing to provide proper documentation of costs and abandoning the project. The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding that Mr. Laughlin breached the contract and the awards to Forrest Construction. It affirmed that the Laughlins were excused from giving notice to cure defects due to Forrest Construction's material breach. The case was remanded to the trial court to re-evaluate the damages for negligent construction and to address the issue of piercing the corporate veil against Thomas Naive.

Construction ContractBreach of ContractNegligent ConstructionQuantum MeruitCorporate Veil PiercingDamagesMaterial BreachHome ConstructionCost Plus ContractAppellate Review
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 44 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