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. 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. 2-06-217-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

in the Matter of the Guardianship of Virgie Louise Parker, an Alleged Incapacitated Person

The attorney ad litem for Virgie Louise Parker appealed the trial court's decision to appoint a guardian, challenging the admission of two physician's reports and the sufficiency of evidence regarding Parker's incapacitation. The Court of Appeals, Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The appellate court found that the physician's reports by Dr. Adolphus Ray Lewis and Dr. Edward A. Luke, Jr., were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, distinguishing them from prior cases where reports were deemed untrustworthy. Furthermore, the court concluded that the jury's findings of Parker's incapacitation, the necessity of a guardian, and the protection of her rights were supported by legally and factually sufficient clear and convincing evidence, thereby overruling all of Parker's four issues.

GuardianshipIncapacitationElderly CareMedical EvidenceBusiness Records ExceptionHearsay RuleAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyDementia
References
20
Case No. 01-15-00774-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2014

in Re Patti J. Wagner, as Guardian of Jenny Wagner, an Incapacitated Adult

This case is an original proceeding arising from a Petition for Writ of Mandamus concerning a trial court's order. The underlying litigation involves personal injury and wrongful death claims following a fire at a residential group home for mentally incapacitated adults. Key issues include the applicability of Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code (Medical Liability Act) to the defendants, which could impose damage caps, and the factual sufficiency of the jury's finding regarding the negligence of the resident who started the fire. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order.

Texas Court of AppealsMandamus ProceedingPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathPremises LiabilityGroup Home NegligenceFire AccidentMentally Disabled AdultsChapter 74 Medical Liability ActDamage Caps
References
32
Case No. 03-17-00534-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2018

Denise Stroup, as Legal Guardian of D. L. S., an Incapacitated Person v. MRM Management, Inc.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a personal injury car-crash case involving an incapacitated person, Douglas Lee Stroup (Appellant). Appellant sued Penny Harrington Taylor for negligence and MRM Management, Inc. (Appellee) for vicarious liability, alleging Taylor, a licensed real estate salesperson, was acting for MRM. Appellee's motion for summary judgment was granted, asserting Taylor was an independent contractor, thus negating vicarious liability. Appellant argues that the independent contractor agreement is void under the Texas Occupation Code, which assigns liability to brokers for their salespersons' tortious conduct. Furthermore, Appellant contends that MRM should be estopped from relying on the agreement, and that factual disputes exist regarding Taylor's employment status, joint-enterprise liability, and statutory vicarious liability under the Texas Occupations Code. Appellant seeks to reverse the trial court's order granting summary judgment, arguing sufficient evidence was presented to raise genuine issues of material fact for trial.

Personal InjuryCar CrashVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorReal Estate AgentReal Estate BrokerTexas Occupations CodeRespondeat SuperiorJoint EnterpriseSummary Judgment Appeal
References
22
Case No. 01-19-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Four J's Community Living Center, Inc. and Anthonia Uduma v. Patti J. Wagner, as Guardian of Jenny Ann Wagner, an Incapacitated Adult

The appellants, Four J's Community Living Center, Inc. and Anthonia Uduma, challenged a trial court's judgment in favor of Patti J. Wagner, as guardian of Jenny Ann Wagner. Jenny, an incapacitated adult, sustained severe burns and smoke inhalation in a fire at a residential care facility operated by Four J's and owned by Uduma. The jury found Four J's and Uduma negligent, awarding significant non-economic damages for past and future pain and disfigurement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding legally sufficient evidence of Uduma's negligence as the premises owner and factually sufficient evidence for the damages awarded. The court also rejected the application of a health care liability damages cap, stating that Four J's did not conclusively prove its status as a licensed health care provider.

NegligencePersonal InjuryResidential Care FacilityFire SafetyDamagesLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyPremises LiabilityHealth Care Liability ClaimTexas Medical Liability Act
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Correctional Officer & Police Benevolent Ass'n v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Elsie Pierre, a correction officer, sustained a work-related injury in May 2004, leading to workers’ compensation leave. Respondent Department of Correctional Services initiated termination proceedings, but a medical evaluation by respondent's designated physician on September 15, 2005, found her unfit for duty. Pierre's physician, Sanford Wert, later cleared her for work on June 12, 2006, a finding supported by a Hearing Officer who recommended reinstatement with retroactive pay. Respondent, however, rejected the full retroactive award, granting pay only from October 12, 2007, arguing that Pierre had not properly exhausted administrative remedies for the earlier date and that an independent evaluation was lacking. Petitioners challenged this limited retroactive pay, but the Court confirmed the respondent's determination, dismissing the petition and upholding the October 12, 2007, start date for back pay.

Workers' Compensation LeaveRetroactive Back PayCivil Service LawAdministrative ReviewFitness for DutyMedical Evaluation DisputeCorrection Officer EmploymentCPLR Article 78 ProceedingJudicial DiscretionAppellate Court Decision
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Yarn Liquidation, Inc.

This memorandum addresses the priority of severance pay claims filed by fourteen former employees of SCT Yarns, Inc., a debtor in a Chapter 11 liquidation case. The court examines whether these claims qualify for third priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(3) for compensation earned within 90 days pre-petition, or first priority as administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1) for services rendered post-petition. Adopting the majority rule, the court determines that severance pay is an administrative expense only to the extent earned by service during the bankruptcy case and a third priority claim only if earned within the 90-day pre-petition period. The court calculates the amounts entitled to first priority as administrative expenses for eleven employees who continued service post-petition and acknowledges that the pre-petition severance pay for all fourteen employees may qualify for third priority, subject to a $4,000 limit.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 LiquidationSeverance PayPriority ClaimsAdministrative ExpensesEmployee CompensationBankruptcy Code § 507Pre-petition ClaimsPost-petition ClaimsCreditor Priority
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2015

Tom J. Jones, and All Occupants v. Dinh Tran & Sonny & Anna, LLC

This document is an Affidavit of Indigency, also known as a Pauper's Oath or Affidavit of Inability to Pay Court Costs. It is used by a petitioner to request the court to waive court fees, asserting an inability to pay due to indigency or receipt of public benefits. The affidavit requires the petitioner to provide current, complete, and true financial information, including income sources and amounts, public benefits received, dependents, property, debts, and monthly expenses. The document warns that false statements can lead to prosecution and states that the court may conduct a hearing to verify the financial information before approving or denying the request for fee waiver. The case involves I. J. Doubs as the petitioner and Jerry D. Crawford as the respondent, filed in the 14th Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas, on January 28, 2015.

Affidavit of IndigencyCourt Costs WaiverPauper's OathFinancial DisclosurePublic BenefitsFee ExemptionTexas Civil ProcedureIndigent LitigantJudicial AdministrationCivil Litigation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1984

Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

In November 1978, claimant Murtaugh filed a discrimination claim against Bankers Trust Company of Albany, N. A. following her 1977 dismissal, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 241. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a discrimination finding, which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Division. An administrative law judge directed Murtaugh's reinstatement and awarded back wages from January 1, 1978, to October 19, 1982, with an offset for unemployment benefits. The Bank appealed this decision, contending the back pay award was unauthorized under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, arguing Murtaugh failed to accept reemployment or mitigate damages. The court found substantial evidence that no bona fide reemployment offer was made and that the issue of mitigation of damages was not properly raised. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, upholding Murtaugh's entitlement to back pay.

Workers' Compensation LawDiscriminationBack Pay AwardReinstatementMitigation of DamagesUnemployment BenefitsOffer of ReemploymentAppellate DivisionNew York LawEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

This case concerns the determination of compensatory damages and front pay for Plaintiff Sharon Pollard against Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. The Court previously found DuPont liable for Title VII discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a damages hearing in July 2003, the Court concluded Plaintiff could not return to work due to severe anxiety and depression stemming from harassment and DuPont's insufficient response. The Court awarded Plaintiff $1,004,374.00 in front pay through age 65, determining she had adequately mitigated her damages. Additionally, $950,000.00 in compensatory damages was awarded for emotional distress, with a future hearing scheduled to determine punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentCompensatory DamagesFront PayIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderMitigation of DamagesExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,694 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