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. 2016-03-1190
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2017

Hughes, Gwendolyn v. Security Finance

Gwendolyn L. Hughes, an assistant manager for Security Finance, filed for an expedited hearing after injuring her right knee upon returning from a smoke break at work on October 24, 2016. She fell on a rug but testified she did not know what caused her to fall. The central legal issue was whether her knee injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment or was idiopathic. The Court, presided over by Judge Lisa A. Lowe, noted that for an idiopathic injury to be compensable, an employment hazard must cause or exacerbate it. Finding no evidence of an employment hazard causing the fall, the Court denied her claim for medical and temporary disability benefits, concluding she was not likely to prevail at a hearing on the merits.

Knee InjuryIdiopathic FallWorkers' CompensationExpedited HearingCausationBurden of ProofScope of EmploymentInjury Benefits DenialAssistant ManagerTennessee Workers' Compensation
References
7
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. Summit Security Services Inc.

The plaintiff, a security guard, brought a retaliation claim under Labor Law § 215 against his former employer, Summit Security Services Inc., and alleged co-employers, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Kirk Leon. Plaintiff alleged termination resulted from a complaint about underpayment by a prior employer. HHC and Leon moved to dismiss, arguing no right of action, while Summit argued it was not the employer at the time of the protected activity. The court denied HHC and Leon's motion, concluding HHC could be considered 'any other person' under the expanded Wage Theft Prevention Act and was not exempt as a political subdivision. Summit's motion to dismiss was granted, as the court found Labor Law § 215 applied only to employers at the time of the protected activity, and the WTPA did not explicitly extend liability to subsequent employers.

RetaliationLabor Law Section 215Wage Theft Prevention ActWTPAEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissPrevailing WageSecurity IndustryCo-employer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Griggs v. Sands

This consolidated case addresses whether a back-pay award from an arbitrator, under a collective bargaining agreement, constitutes 'wages' under the Tennessee Employment Security Law, thereby entitling the Department of Employment Security to a refund of unemployment benefits paid to discharged employees. Five employees of Heil-Quaker Corporation were discharged, received unemployment benefits, and later were reinstated with back pay, from which the arbitrator deducted the benefits. The Chancery Courts of Giles and Marshall Counties ruled against the Department, holding back pay was not wages. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, deeming back-pay awards as 'wages' that disqualify recipients from unemployment benefits and affirming the Department's authority to seek reimbursement.

unemployment compensationback paywagesTennessee Employment Security Lawarbitration awardcollective bargaining agreementreimbursement of benefitswrongful dischargeemployee eligibilitylabor dispute
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zavala-Nava v. A.C. Employment, Inc.

Jose Zavala-Nava, an employee furnished by A.C. Employment, Inc. (Ajax) to Centron Corporation, sustained severe burns due to acetone fumes while cleaning work clothes. He filed a common-law negligence suit against both companies, alleging joint employment and negligence. Both defendants moved for summary judgment, claiming workers' compensation coverage as the exclusive remedy. The trial court granted both motions. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment for A.C. Employment, Inc., finding it was a workers' compensation subscriber. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment for Centron Corporation, as the summary judgment proof did not show Centron to be a subscriber under Texas Workers' Compensation statutes, despite Ajax providing coverage that named Centron as an 'alternate employer' and explicitly stating it was not intended to satisfy Centron's duty to secure its own obligations.

Workers' CompensationCommon LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityAlternate EmployerSubscriber StatusTexas LawPersonal InjuryEmployment Agency
References
12
Case No. ADJ8411218
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

Rafael Becerra vs. PV MART dba BUY LOW MARKET, INC., EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CO., KEYANOOSH GHAMARI dba CODE 3 SECURITY, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's petition for reconsideration. Applicant's petition was granted to amend the original Findings and Order. The Board found that PV Mart dba Buy Low Market, Inc. was not a special employer of the applicant, Rafael Becerra. Consequently, PV Mart and its insurer were dismissed as party defendants, and the applicant was deemed an employee of Keyanoosh Ghamari dba Code 3 Security at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSpecial Employment RelationshipGeneral EmploymentBorrowing EmployerLending EmployerRight to ControlCredibility DeterminationBuy Low MarketCode 3 Security
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1992

Berly v. D & L Security Services & Investigations, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment regarding the wrongful death of Anecletas Berly, a Kroger employee, who was killed by a shoplifter during an apprehension attempt by a security guard, Elbert Phillips, employed by D & L Security Services and Investigations, Inc. The appellants, including Berly's family and Transportation Insurance Company (intervening to protect subrogation interest), sued D & L and Phillips for negligence, alleging improper security and apprehension procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, finding no duty and no proximate cause. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding foreseeability, proximate cause, and legal privilege. The court found that evidence of prior criminal activity at the store raised a fact issue on duty and that Phillips's alleged violations of security procedures could be a cause-in-fact of Berly's death.

NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival StatutesSummary Judgment AppealForeseeabilityProximate CauseSecurity Guard LiabilityShoplifting IncidentThird-Party Criminal ActEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Jermaine Washington, a Black employee, filed a pro se employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Washington alleged racial discrimination based on increased payroll responsibilities, denied transfers to higher-paying sites, and a manager's "threatening" email. He also claimed retaliation after being allegedly threatened with termination for not signing employment documents and experiencing a temporary loss of compensation during a transfer. The court, presided over by Hon. Michael A. Telesca, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Washington failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination and that the alleged retaliatory actions did not constitute materially adverse employment actions or were not causally linked to protected activity. Consequently, Washington's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionFailure to PromoteEmployment At-WillPayroll ResponsibilitiesEmployer-Employee DisputeFederal Court
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trice v. Traughber

Watson Trice, an employee, was denied unemployment compensation after being discharged by Golden Circle Broadcasting, Inc., for refusing to work at a new transmitter site lacking sanitary facilities. The employer moved its operations, and despite assurances, running water was unavailable for several days. Trice refused to work under these unsanitary conditions and was terminated. Initially, his claim was denied by the Department of Employment Security, an appeals referee, the Board of Review, the Chancery Court, and the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, ruling that while a discharge might be justifiable, Trice's refusal did not constitute "misconduct connected with his work" under T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a)(2)(B). The court emphasized the employer's duty to provide reasonable and proper sanitary facilities and found Trice's refusal reasonable given the prevailing conditions.

Unemployment CompensationEmployee DischargeWorkplace ConditionsSanitary FacilitiesEmployer DutyEmployee MisconductTennessee LawAppellate ReviewDenial of BenefitsReversal of Judgment
References
3
Case No. M1998-00023-SC-WCM-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2001

Robert Cunningham, Jr.,e t al v. Shelton Security Service, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the estate of employee Robert W. Cunningham, Sr., who died of heart failure while on duty as a security guard. The claim for death benefits against the employer, Shelton Security Service, Inc., was initially dismissed by the trial court, which found the emotional stress experienced was not extraordinary for a security guard. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this dismissal, deeming there was sufficient evidence of causation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review and agreed with the Panel, concluding that the threat to kill the employee during a confrontation constituted a mental or emotional stimulus of an unusual and abnormal nature, making his death compensable. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackEmotional StressSecurity GuardCausationUnusual Employment StressDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemandTrial Court Error
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 16,753 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