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. 04-22-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Champion Food Service, Inc. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. (Cross-Appellee) v. ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C. (Cross-Appellant)

Champion Food Service, Inc. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. (Champion) appealed a final judgment in favor of ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C. (Pro Parties) after a jury trial. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order awarding additional post-verdict attorneys' fees to the Pro Parties, finding the re-opening of evidence impermissible. However, the court affirmed the judgment for the Pro Parties on their quantum meruit claim, including attorneys' fees (excluding the reversed post-verdict award). Champion's claims for DTPA violations and breach of implied warranty were denied due to insufficient evidence. The court upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding frozen meat products and text messages.

Quantum MeruitAttorneys' FeesDirected VerdictBreach of ContractImplied WarrantyDTPAAppellate ReviewJury VerdictPost-Verdict FeesFood Distribution
References
48
Case No. 2024-30-5862
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

Laymance , Glenda v K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., dba Food City

This case involves an appeal by K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., d/b/a Food City (Employer) from a trial court's order requiring payment of additional temporary total disability (TTD) benefits to Glenda Laymance (Employee). The Employee suffered a right shoulder injury and was initially placed at maximum medical improvement (MMI) by her authorized physician, Dr. Aaron Roberts. However, her condition worsened, leading to objective testing revealing a need for additional treatment, including surgery for severe post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Dr. Roberts subsequently rescinded his MMI determination. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Employee had met her burden of proving entitlement to additional TTD benefits due to the physician's retraction of the MMI and the causal connection between the original injury and the new condition, and remanded the case.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityMaximum Medical ImprovementShoulder InjuryPost-traumatic OsteoarthritisSurgeryPhysician OpinionRescission of MMIExpedited HearingAppeals Board
References
8
Case No. 2021-07-0312
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2024

Cable, Craig v. Conagra Foods Packaged Foods Co., Inc.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's denial of the employer's motion for partial summary judgment. The employee, Craig Cable, sought benefits for a right shoulder injury sustained while working for Conagra Foods. The employer argued the employee failed to meet expert disclosure deadlines and lacked proof of permanent medical impairment. The trial court permitted the employee to depose his treating physician, Dr. Smith, who testified to a work-related injury but no permanent impairment. The Appeals Board found the employer failed to comply with procedural rules by not filing an amended statement of undisputed facts and not establishing the employee reached maximum medical improvement for all conditions, thus failing to shift the burden of proof.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExpert WitnessPermanent Medical ImpairmentMaximum Medical ImprovementProcedural RulesInterlocutory AppealShoulder InjuryCervical Spine InjuryMedical Testimony
References
7
Case No. 2020-08-0198
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2020

Gray, Katie v. Conagra Foods Packaged Foods Co., Inc.

The case involves an employee, Katie Gray, who suffered a work-related hand injury and was diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome. After her authorized treating physician, Dr. Dan Fletcher, assigned a 13% permanent medical impairment rating based on a therapist's report using the range-of-motion model, her employer, Conagra Foods, retained Dr. David West for a medical records review. Dr. West disagreed with the methodology, concluding a 4% impairment rating for complex regional pain syndrome. Due to this discrepancy, the employer requested an evaluation through the Medical Impairment Rating Registry (MIRR), which the employee moved to quash, arguing that a medical records review was an insufficient basis for a dispute. The trial court denied the motion, and the Appeals Board affirmed, holding that the statute and regulations allow either party to obtain a second opinion, even based on a medical records review, to establish a dispute for an MIRR evaluation.

Workers' CompensationMedical Impairment Rating Registry (MIRR)Permanent Medical ImpairmentComplex Regional Pain SyndromeMedical Records ReviewSecond Medical OpinionDispute ResolutionAppeals Board DecisionTennessee LawTrial Court Affirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hargraves v. Armco Foods, Inc.

Leslie B. Hargraves appealed a summary judgment granted to Armco Foods, Inc., d/b/a Food-land, in a personal injury lawsuit. Hargraves filed suit for damages from a 1991 accident, but her filing on July 7, 1993, was one day past the two-year statute of limitations. She argued that a temporary, drug-induced mental impairment after the accident, which made her "groggy and disoriented" for two days, should toll the limitations period under the "unsound mind" provision of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.001(a)(2). The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that such minor, drug-induced conditions do not qualify as "unsound mind" sufficient to toll the statute, especially given her ability to work and file a worker's compensation claim during the two-year period. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Statute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionUnsound MindPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionTexas LawMental IncapacityDrug-Induced ImpairmentLegal Disability
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suarez v. Food Emporium, Inc.

Plaintiff, a job coach for Casita Unida Clubhouse, was injured after slipping on a wet floor while filling in for a transitional employee at defendant Food Emporium. Although he received workers' compensation benefits, plaintiff also commenced a personal injury action against Food Emporium. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was barred because plaintiff was a 'special employee' of Food Emporium. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed. The court determined, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was a special employee due to Food Emporium's control over his work, thus dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarPersonal InjuryControl and DirectionAppellate ReviewDeli DepartmentJob CoachEmployer LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
4
Case No. No. 03A01-9905-CV-00180
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2001

Lett v. Collis Foods, Inc.

JoAnne Lett sued Collis Foods, Inc. and Waffle House, Inc. after being seriously injured in a collision with an intoxicated employee, Lynda Mills. Mills reported to work at Waffle House already intoxicated and, despite attempts by management to sober her up or arrange a ride, she refused and drove herself home. On her way home, she caused the accident. Lett argued that Collis Foods owed a duty of reasonable care to prevent Mills from driving. The trial court granted summary judgment for Collis Foods, which Lett appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Collis Foods did not owe a duty to Lett under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 315, 319, or 324A, as the employer did not contribute to Mills' intoxication, did not force her to drive, and lacked the legal right to restrain her.

Employer LiabilityDuty of CareIntoxicated EmployeeSummary JudgmentNegligenceThird-Party LiabilityOff-Duty EmployeeOff-Premises AccidentRestatement of TortsForeseeability of Harm
References
18
Case No. 04-19-00860-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2020

in Re Vilore Foods Company, Inc.

In this original mandamus proceeding, Relator Vilore Foods Company, Inc. challenged the trial court's denial of its plea to the jurisdiction. Vilore Foods argued that Catalina Castillo, the real party in interest, failed to exhaust her administrative remedies concerning a workplace injury claim, thus depriving the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, agreed with Vilore Foods, finding that Castillo did not pursue her workers' compensation claim through the Division of Workers’ Compensation after her benefits were denied by the carrier. Instead, she filed a lawsuit alleging negligence, negligent supervision, and misrepresentation. The appellate court held that the Workers’ Compensation Act vests exclusive jurisdiction in the Workers’ Compensation Division, requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies before a trial court can assume jurisdiction. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior order and dismiss Castillo's cause for lack of jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationMandamusJurisdictionAdministrative RemediesPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsEmployer LiabilityEmployee InjuryNegligenceExclusive Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arcadi v. Nestle Foods Corp.

This class action, brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), involved employees and former employees of Nestle Foods Corporation who sought overtime compensation for time spent changing into and out of mandatory uniforms. The defendant, Nestle, moved for summary judgment, arguing that this time was non-compensable based on an established "custom or practice" under their collective bargaining agreement, as permitted by FLSA § 203(o). Plaintiffs contended they never explicitly agreed to forgo such compensation. The court examined prior case law on Section 203(o) and found compelling similarities, noting that the employees effectively bargained away their right to compensation for clothes-changing time in exchange for other concessions. Consequently, the court granted Nestle's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Collective Bargaining AgreementOvertime CompensationUniform PolicyClothes-Changing TimeSummary JudgmentClass Action LawsuitCustom or PracticeLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
8
Case No. M2010-02277-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2011

Tyson Foods (Re: Sandra Gibson) v. Tennessee Department of Labor & Workforce Development, Workers' Compensation Division

The employer, Tyson Foods, appealed the dismissal of its petition for common law writ of certiorari by the Chancery Court for Davidson County. Tyson Foods sought to challenge an order from the Tennessee Department of Labor & Workforce Development, Workers’ Compensation Division, which mandated the provision of temporary disability and medical benefits to employee Sandra Gibson. The trial court dismissed the petition, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the existence of an adequate remedy at law. The Court of Appeals affirmed this dismissal, concluding that Tyson Foods had not exhausted its administrative remedies under the Benefit Review Process and that the statutory scheme's reimbursement provision from the second injury fund addressed due process concerns. The court found the petition premature and upheld the trial court's decision.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewSubject Matter JurisdictionDue ProcessCommon Law CertiorariAdministrative LawBenefit Review ProcessStatutory InterpretationRefund RemedySecond Injury Fund
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 729 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