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. 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. 13-00-313-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2001

Montemayor, Rolando v. Chapa, Rolando, U.S.A., Waste-Management Resources, LLC, and Waste-Management of Texas, Inc., F/D/A U.S.A. Waste of Texas, Inc.

Rolando Montemayor, a temporary employee assigned to Waste Management, was injured in an automobile accident and received worker's compensation benefits through his general employer, Express Personnel Services. He subsequently sued Waste Management and its employee, Rolando Chapa, for negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, citing the borrowed servant and fellow servant doctrines, which bar common-law claims under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding that Waste Management had the right of control over Montemayor, making him a borrowed servant, and Chapa a co-employee, thus upholding the summary judgment.

worker's compensationsummary judgmentborrowed servant doctrinefellow servant doctrinerespondeat superiortemporary employmentexclusive remedyTexas lawappellate reviewnegligence
References
18
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

Houser v. Bi-Lo, Inc.

This workers' compensation case involves the appeal by the widow of Phil Houser against Bi-Lo, Inc., after the denial of benefits for Houser's stroke. Houser, a grocery store manager, suffered a stroke after becoming upset over an unexpectedly large stock order. He later suffered a fatal second stroke. The trial court denied benefits, reasoning that managing large stock shipments was not an unusual circumstance for a grocery store manager. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision, holding that the stroke was not caused by mental or emotional stress of an unusual or abnormal nature, a requirement for compensability. The Court emphasized that ordinary occupational stresses do not justify workers' compensation benefits, thus upholding the denial.

Workers' CompensationStrokeMental StressEmotional StimulusArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentUnusual or Abnormal NatureOccupational StressCausal ConnectionGrocery Store Manager
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2005

Duffy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Floor Management, Inc. for personal injuries from a slip and fall on a wet floor inside a Wal-Mart store. Floor Management, a subcontractor for floor cleaning, moved for summary judgment, arguing it had subcontracted its responsibilities to Crystal Clear Nationwide Management and was not actively involved. Wal-Mart cross-moved for contractual indemnification from Floor Management. The Supreme Court denied Floor Management’s motion and partially granted Wal-Mart’s cross-motion, requiring Floor Management to defend Wal-Mart. On cross appeals, the appellate court modified the order, granting Floor Management's motion for summary judgment, finding no liability to plaintiff. The court also granted Wal-Mart's motion for indemnification from Floor Management, applying Arkansas law as per a choice of law provision, and found Floor Management entitled to indemnification from Crystal Clear Nationwide Management.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityIndependent ContractorChoice of LawArkansas LawNegligenceAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dillard Department Stores, Inc. v. Gonzales

This case concerns an appeal by Dillard’s Department Store against a judgment favoring its former employee, David Gonzales, who alleged sexual harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress by his supervisor, Daniel Tellez. Gonzales reported Tellez's inappropriate touching and suggestive remarks to store management, but Dillard's response was deemed inadequate, leading to Gonzales's constructive discharge and a subsequent suicide attempt. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding of sexual harassment under the TCHRA, including compensatory damages and attorney's fees, but reversed the judgment for intentional infliction of emotional distress and the associated exemplary damages.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressAppellate ReviewWorkplace MisconductSupervisor LiabilityDamages AwardAttorney's Fees
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1999

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. McKenzie

Jeremiah McKenzie sued Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and manager Rick Rumfelt for wrongful termination and slander after being fired from a Wal-Mart in Tyler, Texas, allegedly for instituting a worker’s compensation claim and racial discrimination. He later amended his petition to include retaliatory discharge and a Texas Labor Code discrimination claim after being rehired and re-fired from another Wal-Mart store. A jury awarded McKenzie damages, including back-pay, mental anguish, lost credit reputation, and exemplary damages. Wal-Mart challenged the availability of compensatory and punitive damages under former article 5221k in a post-verdict motion. The court of appeals ruled Wal-Mart waived this objection by not raising it earlier. However, the higher court reversed, holding Wal-Mart’s objection was timely as the availability of remedies is a legal question, remanding the case for consideration of the merits.

Wrongful DischargeRetaliatory DischargeRacial DiscriminationCompensatory DamagesPunitive DamagesEquitable RemediesJury IssuesAppellate ReviewWaiverPleading Amendments
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ifill v. Saha Food Stores

Plaintiff Humphrey Ifill, an electrician, sustained severe burn injuries on January 17, 1994, while replacing a circuit breaker in an energized electrical panel at a supermarket owned by defendants Saha Food Stores, Pioneer Supermarkets, and 5610 Fifth Realty Corporation. He alleged that the store manager and owner refused his requests to de-energize the circuit, thereby forcing him to work under unsafe conditions. Ifill filed an action against the defendants, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. During the proceedings, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding that there was a triable issue of fact concerning the defendants' control over the plaintiff's work methods.

Electrician InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSupervisory ControlEnergized EquipmentBurn InjuriesComparative Negligence
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 3,984 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