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

General Electric Co. v. Kunze

Appellee Curtis T. Kunze was awarded damages by a jury after being discharged from his employment with General Electric Company and General Electric Supply Company in violation of Texas Worker’s Compensation Statutes, article 8307c. The damages included lost past and future wages and benefits, and exemplary damages for willful and malicious termination. General Electric appealed, contending that Kunze was fired for poor performance, not for filing a worker's compensation claim, and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for damages and the recoverability of exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding ample evidence to support the jury's findings of wrongful termination and the awarded damages. It also clarified that future lost wages are recoverable under the statute and that prejudgment interest was already factored into the damage awards.

Worker's CompensationWrongful TerminationRetaliatory DischargeExemplary DamagesLost WagesLost BenefitsFuture DamagesPrejudgment InterestEvidence AdmissibilityExpert Witness
References
9
Case No. 2021-02-0170
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2023

Brock, Gregory v. Dollar General Corporation

Mr. Brock, an employee of Dollar General, filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries (neck, back, left shoulder, left knee, PTSD, and depression) after collapsing at work. He alleged the fall was due to mental stress from harassing emails and phone calls from his supervisor. Dollar General moved for summary judgment, arguing the injuries did not primarily arise out of employment and that the alleged mental injuries were not compensable under Tennessee law as they were gradually occurring. The Court granted Dollar General's motion, finding Mr. Brock's physical injuries were not caused by a work hazard and his mental injury was not the result of a sudden or unusual stimulus, but rather cumulative stress, thus dismissing the claim with prejudice.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentMental InjuryPhysical InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse and ScopeCumulative StressPTSDDepressionWorkplace Harassment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Attorney General of the State v. Johnson

The Attorney General appealed a judgment awarding Johnson attorney's fees and court costs after a trial court found the Attorney General's fraud claim against Johnson, regarding worker's compensation benefits, to be frivolous. The Attorney General argued that article 8307, section 9a exempted his agency from liability under Chapter 105, that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, and that Johnson's motion for fees did not comply with section 105.003. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Chapter 105 is applicable to the Attorney General, that the claim lacked arguable basis as Johnson's form did not inquire about other employment and continuous work during benefits was not wrongful, and that Johnson's motion was timely and procedurally compliant.

Attorney's FeesFrivolous ClaimsWorker's Compensation FraudAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationFraudulent ConcealmentTrial Court Judgment AffirmedLitigation ExpensesState Agency Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Electric Co. v. M/V Gediz

General Electric Company brought an action against Turkish Cargo Lines under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA) for alleged cargo damage. Turkish Cargo Lines moved for summary judgment, asserting that General Electric's claim was barred by COGSA's one-year statute of limitations. General Electric contended that Turkish Cargo was estopped from raising this defense due to its conduct, which supposedly induced General Electric not to file suit within the required period. The court conducted a hearing to assess the validity of the estoppel claim. Ultimately, the court found that General Electric failed to demonstrate sufficient conduct by Turkish Cargo to warrant an estoppel, noting that claimed extensions were invalid or made by unauthorized agents. Consequently, Turkish Cargo Lines' motion for summary judgment was granted, and General Electric's complaint was dismissed as time-barred.

COGSAStatute of LimitationsEstoppelSummary JudgmentCargo DamageMaritime LawShipping DisputeAgent AuthoritySettlement NegotiationsTime Barred
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. 10-86-161-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 1987

Jones v. Houston General Ins. Co.

Eddie Jones, an employee of Hutchins Grass Company, died in the course of employment on September 14, 1977. His beneficiaries sought death benefits under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act from Houston General Insurance Company, which had issued an assigned-risk policy to Hutchins. The carrier cancelled the policy on June 22, 1977, due to the employer's failure to pay interim premiums and file payroll reports. The trial court issued a take-nothing judgment in favor of Houston General, finding the policy was cancelled prior to Jones' death. On appeal, the beneficiaries contended the cancellation was ineffective, arguing only the Assigned Risk Pool could cancel the policy. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Waco, affirmed the judgment, holding that the carrier had the authority to cancel the assigned-risk policy without prior directive from the Assigned Risk Pool, consistent with the policy's terms and statutory interpretation.

Insurance Policy CancellationAssigned Risk PlanDeath Benefits ClaimWorker's Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationPremium Non-PaymentEmployer LiabilityJudicial ReviewTexas LawAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gould v. General Mills, Inc.

Plaintiff Gould, a longshoreman, was injured in 1973 while unloading a vessel and sued General Mills, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of warranty due to defective equipment. General Mills, the vessel's owner and cargo consignee, then filed a third-party complaint against Great Lakes Associates, Inc., the stevedore and Gould's employer, claiming negligence and breach of Great Lakes's warranty of workmanlike performance. Great Lakes moved for summary judgment, citing the exclusivity provision of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 905) as immunity from General Mills's indemnity claim. The court denied Great Lakes's motion, ruling that General Mills's claim was not solely based on Gould's injury but primarily on Great Lakes's alleged breach of independent contractual obligations and implied warranties to perform work safely.

Longshoreman injuryNegligence claimBreach of warrantyThird-party actionSummary judgment motionLongshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActExclusivity provisionIndemnification claimWorkmanlike performanceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ely v. General Motors Corp.

Robin Ely, individually and as representative of the estate of Paul J. Ely, brought a wrongful death suit against Darrell Durham, Dow Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc. (Dow), and General Motors after Paul Ely was killed by a vehicle driven by Durham, a Dow mechanic. The trial court granted summary judgment for General Motors, which Ely appealed. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that General Motors was not vicariously liable for Durham's actions, as no agency relationship or joint enterprise was established due to a lack of control over the specific injury-causing act. Additionally, the court found no independent negligence on the part of General Motors, concluding there was no legal duty to ensure Dow's capitalization or implement a drug policy for Dow's employees, and that any alleged negligence in these areas was too remotely connected to Paul Ely's death. The claim of negligent marketing of a high-speed vehicle was also rejected due to the absence of a fiduciary duty.

Wrongful DeathVicarious LiabilityAgency RelationshipJoint EnterpriseSummary JudgmentNegligence ClaimProximate CauseFranchisor-FranchiseeAutomotive IndustryProduct Liability
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Rhone

This compensation case involves an injured steel worker, Upshur Rhone, and a dispute between two insurance carriers, Traders & General Insurance Company and Casualty Underwriters, over liability for his injuries. The central legal question was whether Rhone was an employee of the general contractor, Beaumont Development Corporation, or its subcontractor, C. H. McDaniel, at the moment of injury, crucial for determining which insurance company was responsible. Rhone was directed by the general foreman, who had authority from both the general contractor and subcontractor, to perform a task related to the subcontractor's steel framework contract. The trial court initially found the general contractor liable, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court concluded that Rhone remained an employee of the subcontractor, McDaniel, as he was performing work of the same character and using the same tools as his regular employment, making Casualty Underwriters, McDaniel's carrier, ultimately liable.

Workers' CompensationLoaned Servant DoctrineEmployer LiabilityInsurance DisputeSubcontractorGeneral ContractorTexas LawAppellate CourtPersonal InjuryEmployment Status
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 3,690 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