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. 06-03-00153-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2004

Jack Pierce v. John T. (Jake) Holiday

Jack Pierce sued John T. (Jake) Holiday for injuries allegedly sustained while cutting hay on Holiday's farm. The trial court granted summary judgment for Holiday. On appeal, the Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana clarified the case was about negligence, not workers' compensation, as farm employees are generally excluded from the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The appellate court found the trial court erred in granting a full summary judgment because Holiday's motions did not address all of Pierce's negligence claims (inadequate training and equipment). However, the court affirmed the no-evidence summary judgment solely on the premises liability theory due to a lack of evidence that Holiday had foreknowledge of the dangerous condition. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the remaining liability theories.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationAgricultural EmployeesAppellate ReviewTexas LawTort LawFarm Accident
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jones v. Chevrolet-Tonawanda Division, GMC

This case involves appeals from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a self-insured employer’s entitlement to credit for holiday wages paid to disabled employees. Claimants Hanks and Jones were injured during employment, resulting in lost time, including holidays. The employer paid them compensation for lost time but also provided full wages for holidays as per collective bargaining agreements, subsequently seeking reimbursement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (4)(a). The Board denied these reimbursement requests, stating that holiday pay was a contractual right and not intended to be in lieu of compensation. The appellate court reversed the Board’s decisions, ruling that denying reimbursement would lead to claimants receiving both full wages and compensation for the holidays, creating an imbalance. Therefore, the employer is entitled to reimbursement, and the matters are remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Workers' CompensationHoliday PayReimbursementCollective Bargaining AgreementDisabled EmployeesLost WagesSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate ReviewBoard Decision ReversalStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. 08-02-00452-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2003

Jesse Davila v. Pay & Save Corporation D/B/A Lowe's Market Place, Inc.

Jesse Davila appealed a summary judgment against him in favor of his former employer, Pay & Save Corporation, doing business as Lowe's Market Place, Inc. Davila was fired after another employee accused him of sexual harassment. He sued Pay & Save, alleging defamation, negligence, invasion of privacy, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pay & Save on all claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Davila failed to establish error regarding his claims, and denied Pay & Save's motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Sexual HarassmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealDefamation ClaimNegligence ClaimInvasion of PrivacyFraud AllegationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityScope of Employment
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employment Commission v. Briones

Maria M. Briones and 213 other claimants appealed an administrative determination by the Texas Employment Commission, which had awarded them reduced unemployment benefits due to holiday pay received from their employer, Friedrich Refrigerators, Inc. The trial court initially set aside the Commission's decision, granting full benefits to the claimants. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, affirming the Texas Employment Commission's original decision. The central issue was whether holiday pay constituted "wages" under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act and if it should be attributed to the week the holiday occurred, thereby leading to partial unemployment benefits. The court concluded that holiday pay was indeed wages and attributable to the holiday week, classifying claimants as partially unemployed.

Unemployment benefitsHoliday payWagesStatutory interpretationAdministrative appealPartial unemploymentCollective bargaining agreementEmployer shutdownLabor lawAppellate review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration Between Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n & Monroe County

The petitioner, representing Deputy Sheriffs, challenged an arbitration award concerning holiday pay. Five Deputy Sheriffs, scheduled to work on July 4, 2011, received only eight hours of holiday pay despite being granted the day off, not their regular shift pay plus holiday pay. The petitioner argued that the collective bargaining agreement and Military Law § 249 mandated additional payment. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding neither required the additional payment. The Supreme Court confirmed this award, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no excess of arbitral power, no irrational construction of the CBA, and no violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceArbitration AwardPublic PolicyMilitary LawHoliday PayDeputy SheriffsCPLR Article 75AffirmanceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yeldell v. Holiday Hills Retirement and Nursing Center, Inc.

Bertha Yeldell, a vocational nurse for non-subscriber employer Holiday Hills Retirement and Nursing Center, Inc., suffered second and third-degree burns after a coffee urn overturned while she was making a personal telephone call at her duty station. The trial court awarded damages to Yeldell, finding her injuries to be in the course and scope of employment. The court of appeals reversed this judgment. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals, affirming the trial court's decision, ruling that personal telephone calls, like other acts for comfort, can be incidental to employment and thus compensable under the Workers’ Compensation Act. Additionally, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's exclusion of a witness not disclosed during discovery, stating Holiday Hills failed to supplement interrogatory answers as required by Rule 168(7) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentPersonal ActTelephone CallDiscovery RulesInterrogatory SanctionsWitness ExclusionTexas Civil ProcedureNon-subscriber Employer
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nears v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc.

Sharon Nears appealed the entry of summary judgments in favor of Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. (HHFI) and Six Continents Hotels, Inc. Nears had sued for wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress, alleging her supervisor, Jack Marshall, engaged in abusive behavior while she worked at a Holiday Inn hotel managed by ETEX Hotel Management Co., Inc. Nears contended that HHFI was vicariously liable for Marshall's and ETEX's actions based on theories of actual and apparent authority. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgments, finding Nears failed to present a genuine issue of material fact regarding HHFI's control over Marshall's supervisory interactions with Nears, thus precluding a finding of actual or apparent agency.

Summary Judgment AppealVicarious LiabilityActual AuthorityApparent AuthorityAgency RelationshipFranchisor LiabilityWrongful TerminationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployee SupervisionHotel Management
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDaniel Ford, Inc. v. Local 259, United Automobile Workers

Plaintiff McDaniel Ford, Inc. laid off three employees, prompting a grievance by defendant Local 259 of the United Automobile Workers. An arbitrator ruled the layoff proper but awarded the employees holiday pay. McDaniel Ford petitioned to vacate the holiday pay award, but the case was removed to federal court. Judge Wexler affirmed the arbitrator's decision, emphasizing the strong federal policy favoring arbitration and judicial deference to such awards. The court denied McDaniel Ford's petition to vacate and ordered payment of the holiday pay.

Labor LawArbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementHoliday Pay DisputeLayoff GrievanceFederal Court JurisdictionJudicial Review of ArbitrationUAWEmployer-Employee RelationsUSC Section 185
References
7
Case No. No. 95
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

The Matter of John Borelli v. City of Yonkers

This case addresses a dispute between the City of Yonkers and 39 of its permanently disabled, retired firefighters regarding the calculation of their General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) supplement. The core issue is whether certain compensation, specifically holiday pay, check-in pay, and night differential, constitutes “regular salary or wages” for the purpose of this supplement. The Court concluded that “regular salary or wages” includes monetary compensation to which current firefighters are contractually entitled based on the performance of their regular job duties, thus requiring the inclusion of holiday pay and check-in pay. However, it excludes monetary compensation based on the performance of additional responsibilities beyond their regular job duties, and therefore, night differential should not be included. The lower court's decision was modified to reflect this interpretation.

General Municipal Law 207-aDisabled Firefighters' BenefitsRegular Salary CalculationCollective Bargaining Agreement InterpretationHoliday Pay EntitlementCheck-in Pay DisputesNight Differential ExclusionMunicipal Financial BurdenStatutory Remedial PurposePublic Sector Employment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pierce v. Holiday

Jack Pierce sued John T. (Jake) Holiday for injuries sustained while cutting hay on Holiday’s farm, alleging negligence. The trial court granted Holiday's motion for partial and full summary judgment. Pierce appealed, arguing he was not a dual capacity employee for workers' compensation purposes and that genuine issues of fact regarding negligence remained. The appellate court clarified the case was solely a negligence claim, not workers' compensation. The court affirmed the no-evidence summary judgment granted to Holiday on the premises liability claims due to lack of evidence regarding Holiday's foreknowledge of dangerous conditions. However, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings on Pierce’s other negligence claims concerning inadequate training and equipment, as Holiday's summary judgment motions did not address these specific theories of liability.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewTexas LawMotion for Summary JudgmentEvidenceBurden of ProofInadequate TrainingInadequate Equipment
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,653 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