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

Chelli v. Banle Associates, LLC

This appellate decision from the Supreme Court, Queens County, addresses an action for personal injuries where the defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict. Key issues included whether the plaintiff sustained a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, impacting common-law indemnification, and the excessiveness of damages for future pain and suffering. The court, applying a new interpretation of "permanent total disability" from Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc., modified the judgment to grant common-law indemnification against the plaintiff's employer. Additionally, the damages award for future pain and suffering was deemed excessive, leading to a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff accepts a reduced amount.

Personal InjuryGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawCommon-Law IndemnificationPermanent Total DisabilityFuture Pain and SufferingDamages ReductionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewBrain Injury
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

Borden, Inc. v. De La Rosa

Jose Homero De La Rosa, a former Borden employee, sued Borden for wrongful termination under Article 8307c after filing a workers' compensation claim. A jury awarded De La Rosa $986,000 in actual damages and $10,000,000 in punitive damages. Borden appealed, arguing excessive damages and errors in jury instructions and evidence admission. The appellate court found the actual damages for future lost wages excessive by $432,712 and punitive damages excessive by $8,500,000. The court affirmed the findings of wrongful termination but reversed and remanded the judgment for trial unless De La Rosa filed a remittitur of the excessive amounts.

Wrongful TerminationRetaliatory DischargePunitive DamagesActual DamagesExcessive DamagesRemittiturJury VerdictEmployment LawTexas LawAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2003

Baez v. New York City Transit Authority

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered a judgment on or about July 16, 2003, upholding a jury verdict that awarded the plaintiff $600,000 for past pain and suffering and $380,000 for future pain and suffering. This judgment also brought up for review an order from November 26, 2002, which denied the defendants' motion to deem the damages verdict excessive. The plaintiff, a 56-year-old home-health-aide, sustained a severe comminuted midshaft humeral fracture in her right arm, requiring multiple surgeries including rod and plate placements, and extensive physical therapy. Despite healing, she was left with limited forearm rotation, numbness, hand weakness, and three large keloid scars. The court unanimously affirmed the damages awards, finding them to be reasonable compensation under the circumstances, referencing CPLR 5501 [c] and Martinez v Gouverneur Gardens Hous. Corp.

Humeral fracturePain and sufferingDamages awardJury verdictAppellate affirmationSurgical interventionPhysical therapyKeloid scarsLimited range of motionMedical hardware
References
1
Case No. NO. 03-12-00559-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2014

T & v. Optimum, LLC D/B/A Optimum Steel Industries v. Andrew Romero D/B/A Romero Inspection and Fabrication

This Texas Court of Appeals case involves a dispute between contractor T&V Optimum, LLC and subcontractor Andrew Romero regarding damages owed on commercial construction projects. After a jury trial awarded Romero $704,010.07, Optimum appealed, challenging the judgment on grounds of non-conformity to pleadings, legally insufficient evidence for damages, and excessive damages. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, ruling that Optimum waived its excessive damages complaint by not filing a motion for new trial, and found the judgment conformed to the pleadings with legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's damage verdict, despite complexities in documentation and compensation methods.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawContract DisputeDamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceExcessive DamagesWaiver of ErrorSubcontractor-Contractor Dispute
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dalworth Trucking Co. v. Bulen

The case involves Donnell Bulen and Ricky Bulen, III suing Dalworth Trucking Company and Billy Halbert for the wrongful death of Ricky Bulen, Jr. in a truck collision. The jury awarded $1.3 million in compensatory damages against both defendants and $1 million in punitive damages against Dalworth for gross negligence. The appeals court addressed contentions regarding the sufficiency of evidence for punitive damages, the excessiveness of the punitive award, the validity of Donnell Bulen's common law marriage claim, and the attorney ad litem's fee. The court affirmed the judgment regarding compensatory and punitive damages and the common law marriage finding. However, it found the $100,000 attorney ad litem fee excessive and modified the judgment to reduce it to $40,000, affirming the judgment as modified.

Wrongful DeathTruck CollisionGross NegligencePunitive DamagesCommon Law MarriageAttorney Ad Litem FeeSufficiency of EvidenceExcessive DamagesAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beverly Enterprises of Texas, Inc. v. Leath

Gwen Leath, a food-service employee, sued her employer, Beverly Enterprises of Texas, Inc., for negligence and gross negligence after suffering injuries from a fall at work. Beverly, which did not carry workers' compensation insurance, was found liable by a jury, which awarded Leath $158,366.16 in actual damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. Beverly appealed, raising several points including federal preemption by ERISA, sufficiency of evidence for future medical expenses and gross negligence, the denial of a bifurcated trial, and the excessiveness of punitive damages. The appellate court systematically overruled all of Beverly's points, affirming the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that Leath's common-law negligence action was not preempted by ERISA, that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence for gross negligence and future medical expenses, and that the punitive damages award was not excessive based on the statutory limits and case facts.

NegligenceGross NegligencePunitive DamagesERISA PreemptionWorkplace InjuryEmployer LiabilityFuture Medical ExpensesSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Novell v. Carney Electric Construction Corp.

Plaintiff David Novell was injured on a construction site when his left leg was caught in a hoist rope while using a Greenlee cable-puller. The building was owned by MRI Broadway Rental, Inc., and Mordall Realty, with J.C. Penny, Inc. as a lessee, who hired James King & Son, Inc. as the general contractor. King subcontracted electrical work to Carney Electric Construction Corp. and Carneco, Inc., plaintiff's employer. The jury found Carney liable under Labor Law § 240(1) and awarded substantial damages, apportioning 45% liability to Carney. Carney moved to set aside the verdict, arguing the statute was inapplicable, it bore no liability as a subcontractor, and the damages were excessive. The court affirmed the applicability of Labor Law § 240(1) to the accident and the subcontractor's liability, but found the jury's damage awards to David and Linda Novell excessive, granting a new trial on damages unless they stipulated to reduced amounts.

Construction AccidentLabor Law Section 240Subcontractor LiabilityHoist Rope InjuryCable-Puller AccidentWorkers' Compensation DefenseAlter Ego DoctrineExcessive DamagesPersonal InjuryJury Verdict
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cioffi v. New York Community Bank

Rose Cioffi, a former employee of New York Community Bank (NYCB), sued the bank for sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation leading to constructive discharge under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. While the jury found in favor of NYCB on the sexual harassment claims, it ruled in favor of Cioffi on the retaliation-constructive discharge claim, awarding her $125,000 for back pay and $195,000 in punitive damages. NYCB moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence for constructive discharge and excessive punitive damages. The court denied NYCB's motions, upholding the jury's verdict by concluding there was sufficient evidence for constructive discharge and that the punitive damages award was not excessive. The court also granted plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and prejudgment interest on the back pay award at the federal rate, while denying prejudgment interest on punitive damages and the motion to amend the caption.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationConstructive DischargeSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentPunitive DamagesAttorney FeesPrejudgment InterestTitle VIIFederal Civil Procedure
References
79
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ethicon, Inc. v. Martinez

Alma Martinez was discharged by her employer, Ethicon, Inc., after receiving a $12,000 workers' compensation award for a wrist injury. She sued Ethicon for wrongful discharge, alleging a violation of article 8307c of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. A jury found in favor of Martinez, awarding actual and exemplary damages. Ethicon appealed, challenging the admissibility of lay opinion testimony, the sufficiency of evidence for the wrongful discharge, and the excessiveness of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that there was no error in admitting the testimony, sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of wrongful discharge, and the exemplary damages were not excessive.

Wrongful DischargeWorkers' CompensationEmployment DiscriminationRepetitive Motion InjuryDe Quervain's SyndromeGanglion CystMedical DisqualificationLay Opinion TestimonyExemplary DamagesSufficiency of Evidence
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 4,606 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