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
Oct 17, 1997

In re the Claim of Mustaqur Rahman

The claimant, employed by a temporary agency for six months, resigned alleging co-worker harassment. He admitted not discussing his concerns with the employer prior to resigning. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found he voluntarily left his employment without good cause, noting that continuing work and reassignment options were available had he informed the employer. The Board's decision was affirmed on appeal, reinforcing that co-worker conflicts do not constitute good cause for leaving employment, especially when the employer is not notified beforehand.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary ResignationGood CauseHarassmentEmployer NotificationBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewCo-worker ConflictDisqualificationEmployment Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2003

In re the Claim of Kohen

The claimant, a social worker, filed a complaint against her employer with the Division of Human Rights alleging religious harassment. Despite continued problems, including a high-risk pregnancy, she resigned in June 2003, citing dissatisfaction with the work environment and unfair treatment. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, concluding she voluntarily left without good cause. The court affirmed this decision, reiterating that dissatisfaction with one's working environment does not constitute good cause for leaving employment.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary ResignationGood CauseWork EnvironmentHarassmentPregnancyAppealSocial WorkerDissatisfactionUnfair Treatment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Elkan-Moore

The case involves a claimant's appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled she was disqualified from receiving benefits due to voluntarily leaving her employment without good cause. The claimant, a museum director for five years, contended she resigned due to distress over allegations by a former Board of Trustees president and ongoing harassment from staff. However, the court found that issues with co-workers do not constitute good cause for leaving. An investigation had cleared the claimant of the allegations, and the Board was actively working to resolve the situation and retain her. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant left her job due to general dissatisfaction with work conditions.

Unemployment InsuranceVoluntary QuittingGood CauseJob DissatisfactionWorkplace HarassmentBoard of TrusteesEmployer-Employee RelationsAppellate ReviewBenefit DisqualificationClaimant Appeal
References
5
Case No. 342 S.W. 2d 555
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1961

Texas Employment Commission v. Amlin

This case addresses whether employees of Big Smith Manufacturing Company were eligible for unemployment benefits after a two-week plant shutdown, during which work was unavailable and some employees received no vacation pay based on seniority. The union agreement dictated vacation terms, and while employees were ready and willing to work, the plant was closed. The Texas Employment Commission initially denied benefits, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court of Texas. The Supreme Court affirmed that the claimants did not voluntarily leave their employment without good cause, consistent with previous companion cases, thereby entitling them to unemployment compensation. The decision clarified the interpretation of the 'voluntarily without good cause' disqualification under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act regarding union-negotiated shutdowns.

Unemployment BenefitsVacation PayPlant ShutdownUnion AgreementSeniorityDisqualification CriteriaVoluntary LeavingGood CauseTexas Unemployment Compensation ActCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Leake

Appellee H. B. Leake sued appellant Texas Employers’ Insurance Association to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award and seek compensation for a 1935 back injury. Leake filed his claim nine years later, alleging "good cause" due to initial belief of trivial injury and doctors misdiagnosing his condition as rheumatism, a claim supported by a jury verdict. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Leake’s testimony, even when viewed favorably, failed to establish "good cause" for the extensive delay. The court highlighted that Leake knew of his injury from the start, suffered continuous pain, and notably withheld injury details from his consulted physicians. Furthermore, a two-year period following a varicose vein operation lacked any documented "good cause" for continued delay in filing, solidifying the court's decision to render judgment for the appellant.

Delayed Claim FilingGood Cause ExceptionStatute of LimitationsWorkman's CompensationBack InjuryMedical MisdiagnosisPermanent Total IncapacityAppellate ReviewReversed and RenderedIndustrial Accident Board
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1961

Texas Employment Commission v. Huey

Clara Huey and other plaintiffs sought unemployment benefits after being laid off during a plant shutdown by Nardis Sportswear, Inc. The Texas Employment Commission denied benefits, arguing the union contract effectively made their unemployment a voluntary 'vacation period' without pay. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' reversal of the trial court, ruling that the plaintiffs were not disqualified from receiving benefits. The court found the shutdown was primarily for the employer's benefit, not a union-demanded vacation, and thus unemployment was involuntary. Therefore, the plaintiffs did not 'leave their employment voluntarily without good cause connected with their work' as per the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act.

Unemployment CompensationPlant ShutdownUnion ContractVacation PayInvoluntary UnemploymentStatutory ConstructionTexas LawCollective BargainingEligibility for BenefitsEmployer Discretion
References
64
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

Redd v. Texas Employment Commission

Stella M. Redd, a former employee of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, was compulsorily retired at age 65 and subsequently filed for unemployment benefits with the Texas Employment Commission. Her claim was initially denied on the grounds of voluntary resignation without good cause and later for ineligibility due to failing to actively seek work. The Commission and trial court affirmed these decisions. This appellate court reversed the finding of voluntary leaving, holding that compulsory retirement is not voluntary in the statutory sense. However, the court upheld the Commission's finding that Redd was ineligible for benefits because she failed to demonstrate active and diligent efforts to secure new employment, thereby not being "available for work" as required by law.

Unemployment CompensationCompulsory RetirementVoluntary TerminationEligibility for BenefitsAvailability for WorkCollective BargainingPension PlansStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence
References
38
Case No. 03-90-170-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 1991

Davis-Lynch, Inc. v. Texas Employment Commission and Celedonio S. Reyes

Davis-Lynch, Inc., appealed a judgment affirming an award of unemployment benefits to its former employee, Celedonio S. Reyes, by the Texas Employment Commission. Davis-Lynch contended the trial court erred in affirming the Commission's finding that Reyes had "good cause" for voluntarily terminating his employment and also challenged the use of a "substantial evidence de novo" review. Reyes had quit after his weekly hours were unilaterally cut by 25%, effectively reducing his pay by over 20%. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the district court applied the appropriate review standard and that the Commission's good-cause determination was not arbitrary or capricious.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary TerminationGood CauseSubstantial Evidence ReviewTexas Employment CommissionAppellate ReviewWage ReductionEmployer-Employee DisputeJudicial ReviewLabor Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Krokos

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to voluntarily leaving his employment without good cause. The claimant contended that his resignation was prompted by harassment and an expectation of being fired. However, the alleged harassment consisted of supervisory criticism and personality clashes, which do not constitute good cause for leaving employment. Quitting in anticipation of discharge is also not considered good cause. The Board's determination, supported by substantial evidence, was upheld.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary ResignationGood CauseSupervisory CriticismJob PerformanceCredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewPersonality Clashes
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 20,776 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