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

Federal Express Corp. v. Dutschmann

Marcie Dutschmann, a former Federal Express employee, sued Federal Express for retaliatory discharge and breach of contract. A jury found that Federal Express terminated Dutschmann in retaliation for sexual harassment complaints and failed to exercise good faith in its Guaranteed Fair Treatment Procedure (GFTP) following her termination. Federal Express appealed the $89,000 judgment, raising five points related to sufficiency of evidence, contract formation from employee handbooks, breach of contract submission, good faith and fair dealing in employment, and attorney’s fees. The court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence for retaliatory discharge and that Federal Express's GFTP created a contractual duty of good faith, which it breached by manipulating the review process.

Retaliatory DischargeSexual HarassmentEmployment ContractEmployee HandbookGood Faith and Fair DealingPunitive DamagesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictDue ProcessGrievance Procedure
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Highland Village Parents Group v. United States Federal Highway Administration

The plaintiff, Highland Village Parents Group, challenged a federally-funded road construction project in Denton County, Texas, alleging violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The lawsuit named federal and state transportation agencies and their administrators as defendants. The court dismissed claims against the state defendants, Texas Transportation Commission and Ric Williamson, ruling that the APA applies only to federal agencies. Furthermore, the court found the plaintiff's claims against the federal defendants were time-barred by a 180-day statute of limitations, which superseded the general six-year APA limitation. The court also determined that a subsequent reevaluation of the project did not reopen the claims or provide a new basis for a lawsuit, as the modifications were considered minor. Consequently, the Federal Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the entire case was dismissed with prejudice due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Administrative Procedure Act (APA)National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)Section 4(f) Department of Transportation ActMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsSovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Highway Administration (FHWA)Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campos v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice

Appellants, Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero, appealed a trial court's order granting a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice Community, Justice Assistance Division, and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act for sexual harassment and assault while incarcerated at the Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims, finding the appellees to be state entities immune under section 1983 and the claims for injunctive relief moot. However, the court reversed and remanded the claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, specifically those related to premise defect, use of tangible personal property, and negligent hiring, training, and supervision, allowing for further discovery and amendment of pleadings.

Sovereign immunityTexas Tort Claims ActPlea to jurisdictionSection 1983Premise defectTangible personal propertyNegligent hiringNegligent supervisionSexual harassmentSexual assault
References
15
Case No. 13-08-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2009

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections, and Nueces County Adult Probation Department

Appellants Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellees, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act, stemming from sexual harassment and assault during their incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, determining that the appellees were state entities immune from such suits, and found claims for injunctive relief moot as appellants were no longer incarcerated. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, remanding for further proceedings to allow discovery and amendment of pleadings regarding allegations of premise defect and the use of tangible personal property, consistent with prior rulings.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFederal Civil RightsSection 1983Premise DefectTangible Personal PropertyNegligent Hiring and SupervisionSexual MisconductIncarceration Conditions
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Insurance v. Watnick

Jay and Marianna Watnick, New York residents, were severely injured in a car accident in Quebec with Jay Anderson. They were insured by Federal Insurance Company under a policy with uninsured and underinsured motorist endorsements. After seeking limited compensation from Quebec's Régie, Federal denied their claims, arguing Anderson's vehicle was neither uninsured nor underinsured, and sought to stay arbitration. The Supreme Court granted Federal's application to stay both claims, but the Appellate Division reversed the stay for the underinsured claim. The Court of Appeals agreed that Anderson's vehicle was not uninsured. However, it disagreed with the Appellate Division on the underinsured claim, ruling that the Watnicks had not exhausted by payment the limits of all applicable bodily insurance policies as required by statute and their policy. Consequently, the Court modified the Appellate Division's order, granting Federal's application to permanently stay arbitration of the underinsured motorist claim, thereby reinstating the Supreme Court's original decision to stay both claims.

Underinsured Motorist CoverageUninsured Motorist EndorsementCar AccidentQuebec Automobile Insurance ActExhaustion of Policy LimitsInsurance LawVehicle and Traffic LawArbitration StayNew York Insurance PolicyInter-jurisdictional Accident
References
3
Case No. 2016-08-0701
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

Gueye, Kine v. Federal Express Corporation

The employee, Kine Gueye, appealed a denial of additional benefits for a work-related low back strain, which the employer, Federal Express Corporation, had initially stipulated as compensable. The Appeals Board previously affirmed the trial court's denial of medical care for various complaints the employee alleged were related to her fall. Following a subsequent trial, the court again denied further medical and disability benefits, concluding the employee failed to prove her ongoing complaints primarily arose from her employment, though it awarded future medical treatment for the stipulated back strain. The employee appealed this decision, arguing legal errors and presenting non-appellate issues. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that pro se litigants must adhere to procedural rules and appellate courts will not construct arguments on their behalf. The Board also cautioned trial courts regarding the blanket judicial notice of prior testimony and exhibits.

Workers' Compensation AppealLow Back StrainMedical Benefits DenialTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityCausation IssuePreexisting ConditionPro Se LitigantJudicial NoticeAppellate Review Standards
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fulton Bellows, LLC v. Federal Insurance

This case involves Fulton Bellows, LLC (FBLLC) suing Federal Insurance Company for breach of contract, violation of the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and bad faith refusal to pay an insurance claim. FBLLC sought defense coverage under its Employment Practices Liability (EPL) policy for an age discrimination lawsuit (Gaskey v. Fulton Bellows, LLC) filed against it. Federal Insurance denied coverage, citing a prior acts exclusion and untimely notice of the claim. The court denied Federal Insurance's motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the discriminatory acts occurred after the policy effective date and whether the late notice prejudiced the insurer, given it was within the policy period. However, the court granted summary judgment for Federal Insurance on the bad faith failure to pay claim and the TCPA claim, concluding that Federal Insurance asserted good faith defenses and its denial was not deceptive or unfair.

Insurance Policy InterpretationEmployment Practices Liability (EPL)Prior Acts ExclusionNotice ProvisionClaims-Made PolicyOccurrence PolicyPrejudice RuleBad Faith ClaimTennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)Summary Judgment
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2009

Federal Insurance Co. v. Ruiz

Federal Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment that sided with Carol Ruiz in a worker's compensation dispute. Ruiz, a secretary, suffered a workplace injury on January 24, 2005, and was later diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which Federal disputed. The central issue was whether Federal waived its right to contest the compensability of Ruiz's carpal tunnel syndrome by failing to do so within the 60-day period stipulated by Texas Labor Code § 409.021(c). Both a hearing officer and an appeals panel evaluated whether the condition could have been reasonably discovered during that period, with the appeals panel concluding Federal had indeed waived its right. The trial court affirmed the appeals panel's decision, and the appellate court, aligning with precedents like Sanders v. American Protection Insurance Co., also affirmed, ruling that the condition's compensability was waived.

Worker's CompensationWaiver RuleTexas Labor CodeCarpal Tunnel SyndromeExtent of InjuryCompensability DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance LiabilityRepetitive Trauma
References
9
Case No. 16 NY3d 706
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2011

Federal Insurance v. International Business MacHines Corp.

Federal Insurance Company (Federal) sought a declaration that its excess insurance policy did not cover attorneys' fees paid by International Business Machines Corporation and the IBM Personal Pension Plan (collectively, IBM) in a class action lawsuit (*Cooper v IBM Personal Pension Plan*). The *Cooper* action alleged violations of ERISA pertaining to age discrimination. IBM sought reimbursement from Federal after exhausting an underlying Zurich policy. The core dispute revolved around whether the disputed language in Federal's "follow form" policy extended coverage to IBM's actions as a plan settlor, which are not considered fiduciary acts under ERISA. The Supreme Court initially denied Federal's motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to Federal. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that the policy's plain language limited coverage to acts of an insured undertaken in its capacity as an ERISA fiduciary, which IBM was not in this instance.

Insurance Policy InterpretationERISAFiduciary DutyExcess InsuranceSummary JudgmentPlan SettlorEmployee Benefit PlansContract LawPolicy CoverageAge Discrimination
References
18
Case No. 4:15-cv-01258
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2015

Batiste, Tedderick R.

Teddrick Batiste, a petitioner incarcerated and sentenced to death, moves the court for the appointment of federal counsel in his federal habeas corpus proceedings. His current counsel, the Texas Office of Capital Writs, represented him in state post-conviction processes but is not permitted to represent him in federal habeas review. Batiste is indigent and asserts his entitlement to appointed counsel under 18 U.S.C. § 3599 to present his constitutional claims, which have not yet been addressed by a federal court. The motion is filed within the fifteen-day timeframe after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief in state habeas corpus proceedings.

Federal Habeas CorpusCapital CaseIndigent DefenseAppointment of CounselPost-Conviction ReliefTexas Criminal AppealsDeath SentenceDue ProcessConstitutional Claims
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,722 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