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. 03-03-00704-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2005

Texas Mutual Insurance Company// Eckerd Corporation H.E. Butt Grocery Company Third-Party Solutions, Inc. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Apollo Enterprises, Inc. And Walgreen Company v. Eckerd Corporation H.E. Butt Grocery Company Third-Party Solutions, Inc. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Apollo Enterprises, Inc. And Walgreen Company//Cross-Appellee,Texas Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves cross-appeals concerning whether an insurance company must first exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act before filing a lawsuit for alleged overcharges by health care providers. Appellant Texas Mutual Insurance Company sued several pharmacies and billing companies for negligent misrepresentation and money had and received, claiming they over-billed for prescription drugs. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted partial summary judgment against Texas Mutual. The Court of Appeals, relying on prior precedent, determined that the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission holds exclusive jurisdiction over medical fee disputes within the Act's pervasive regulatory scheme. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as Texas Mutual had not exhausted its administrative remedies.

Workers' Compensation ActAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionMedical Fee DisputesPharmaceutical Fee GuidelineOverbillingNegligent MisrepresentationMoney Had and ReceivedStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brookshire Grocery Co. v. Goss

Barbara Goss, a grocery store employee, was injured while attempting to maneuver around a loaded cart in a cooler at a Brookshire Grocery store. A jury initially found the employer negligent, and the court of appeals affirmed this judgment. However, the Texas Supreme Court reversed this decision. The Court held that Brookshire Grocery Company owed no duty to warn its employee of a hazard that was commonly known or already appreciated by the employee. It concluded that the danger of stepping over a visible, stationary cart was apparent to anyone, including Goss, who had prior experience with such carts. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment for Brookshire.

employer negligenceemployee injuryduty to warncommonly known riskpremises liabilityappellate reversalTexas Supreme Courtworkers' compensation nonsubscriberhazard appreciationjudgment render
References
5
Case No. E2015-01653-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2016

Eric G. Glasgow v. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc.

Eric G. Glasgow sued K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc. in a premises liability action after suffering injuries from a fall in a grocery store restroom. Glasgow alleged negligence, claiming a handrail detached from the wall, causing him to fall and develop chronic migraines. A jury initially awarded $350,000 in damages, which the trial court reduced to $250,000. K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc. appealed, arguing the reduced award lacked material evidence. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that material evidence, including Glasgow's significant lifestyle changes and permanent predisposition to pain, supported the damages award.

Premises liabilityPersonal injuryJury verdictCompensatory damagesMigrainesPost-concussion syndromeNegligenceAppellate reviewMaterial evidenceRemittitur
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1976

Claim of Slotnick v. Howard Stores Corp.

This appeal challenges a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision affirming awards for total disability and death benefits to the estate of a district manager for Howard Stores Corp. The decedent was found injured and disoriented in Manhattan during work hours and later died. The core issues were whether an industrial accident occurred in the course of employment and its causal relationship to the death. Despite a lack of direct evidence and conflicting medical opinions, the Board found for the claimant, applying a statutory presumption that the unwitnessed accident arose out of employment. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding and the presumption was not rebutted. A dissenting opinion argued that the decedent’s actions constituted a personal pursuit, negating the presumption and the link to employment.

workers' compensation lawindustrial accidentcausal relationshipstatutory presumptioncourse of employmentunwitnessed accidentdeath benefitstotal disabilityappellate reviewdissenting opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Albertsons Grocery Stores

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, as subrogee of Shirley T. Mills, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Albertsons Grocery Stores. Mills, an employee, was injured at Albertsons' store and received workers' compensation benefits from Hartford but did not sue Albertsons. Hartford then sued Albertsons in its own name, well within the statute of limitations. Albertsons argued that Hartford could only be subrogated to a recovery by Mills, and since Mills did not sue, she could not recover, thus neither could Hartford. The court reversed the summary judgment, holding that subrogation applies to the right to seek recovery, not just actual recoveries, and that the statute-of-limitations defense was not available to Albertsons when Hartford filed suit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsThird-Party TortfeasorInsurance CarrierDerivative ClaimRights of RecoveryTexas LawAppeal
References
24
Case No. 15-cv-4357 (PAC)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2017

Chavis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Cory Chavis, an Asset Protection Manager at a Walmart in Suffern, New York, sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, alleging religious discrimination and retaliation under Title VII. Chavis sought a religious accommodation to not work on Sundays due to her Sabbath observance. While initially requiring her to use vacation days, Walmart later granted her accommodation. Chavis subsequently claimed a hostile work environment and discriminatory denial of seventeen promotions. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment in part, dismissing claims of failure to accommodate and hostile work environment, as well as most promotion claims. However, it denied summary judgment on Chavis's retaliation claim and promotion claims for specific MAPM and ASM positions, finding genuine issues of material fact.

Religious DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteTitle VIIHostile Work EnvironmentSabbath AccommodationWalmartEmployment LawNew York Law
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richey v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff Tina Richey filed a wrongful discharge lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Texas, L.L.C., alleging she was terminated for refusing to participate in an illegal scheme to defraud vendors. Wal-Mart moved for summary judgment, contending there was insufficient evidence for Richey's Sabine Pilot claim, which requires proving she was discharged solely for refusing to commit a criminal act. The court denied Wal-Mart's motion, finding genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Richey was indeed discharged, if her refusal was the sole reason, and if there was actual malice to support punitive damages. Additionally, the court ruled that Richey's prior EEOC charge, mentioning sexual harassment, did not serve as a judicial admission to bar her Sabine Pilot claim. Consequently, the case will proceed to trial, as sufficient evidence exists for a jury to decide the claims.

Wrongful DischargeSabine Pilot ExceptionEmployment At Will DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionFraud AllegationsPunitive DamagesJudicial AdmissionsEEOC ChargePretext for TerminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. ADJ10186320
Regular
Feb 19, 2019

ELEUTERIO POLINA, vs. RALPHS GROCERY STORE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ralphs Grocery Store's petition for reconsideration. Defendant argued the administrative law judge erred in finding hypertension and stroke industrially caused. The Board affirmed the judge's decision, relying on the qualified medical evaluator's opinion that work stress and night shift work were contributing factors to the applicant's hypertension, which in turn led to the stroke. The Board emphasized that industrial factors only need to be a contributing cause for an injury to be compensable, and the location of symptom onset is irrelevant if the exposure occurred during employment.

HypertensionStrokeWork StressNight ShiftCumulative InjuryMedical CausationQualified Medical EvaluatorCardiologistCircadian RhythmCatecholamine
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Presser v. Key Food Stores Cooperative, Inc.

Dorothy Presser sued her former employer, Key Food Stores Cooperative, Inc., under various labor laws, including the WARN Act, alleging age discrimination and improper notice of mass layoff. The court had previously dismissed some of her claims. Presser sought to amend her individual WARN Act claim into a class action. The court granted her motion to amend the complaint to include a class of non-releasor employees who did not sign releases, finding that this class could potentially meet the requirements for class certification. However, the court denied her motion to include a class of employees who had signed releases, determining that common questions of law or fact would not predominate over individual issues of waiver, thus making such a class unsuitable for certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.

Age DiscriminationWARN ActClass ActionEmployment LawMass LayoffMotion to AmendRule 23Federal Civil ProcedureEastern District of New YorkReleases and Waivers
References
26
Case No. 06-05-00036-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2006

Brookshire Grocery Company v. Barbara Goss

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of an employee, Barbara Goss, against her employer, Brookshire Grocery Company, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Goss was awarded $726,078.50 in damages by a jury for injuries sustained in an accident on Brookshire's premises. Brookshire appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding duty, proximate cause, and damages, as well as alleging charge error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on all challenged issues.

Nonsubscriber EmployerEmployee InjuryWorkplace SafetyPremises LiabilityOrdinary NegligenceProximate CauseDamages AwardLoss of Earning CapacityPhysical ImpairmentMedical Expenses
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 4,315 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