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

Carr v. United Parcel Service

The case addresses a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee concerning individual liability under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Plaintiff Kelly Carr alleged sexual harassment against her employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), and three UPS employees. The individual defendants moved for judgment, arguing they could not be held individually liable. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the THRA's 'agent of an employer' language does not impose individual liability, aligning with federal interpretations of Title VII. While the THRA provides for accomplice liability for individuals who aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer's discriminatory practice, the Court found no evidence under the certified facts to hold the non-supervisory and supervisory defendants individually liable for either co-worker harassment or supervisor-created hostile work environment, as their actions did not constitute aiding and abetting the employer's failure to take remedial action.

Sexual HarassmentTennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Individual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTitle VIICertified Question of LawRespondeat SuperiorAiding and AbettingHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
23
Case No. NO. 03A01-9711-CV-00525
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1998

Jeff Hubrig v. Lockheed-Martin Energy Systems, Inc., Linc Hall, Individually Larry Pierce, Individually, and Jim Kolling, Individually

Plaintiff Jeff Hubrig, a self-described whistleblower, sought damages after his employment termination, alleging it was due to his refusal to participate in or remain silent about illegal corporate activities. The defendants, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc. and several individuals, denied these claims. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Hubrig was terminated for time card abuse and sexual harassment. Hubrig appealed, raising issues regarding the pretextual nature of his termination reasons, the viability of a common law retaliatory discharge claim, and outrageous conduct. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Hubrig's misconduct was the sole cause for his termination and that he failed to demonstrate his protected activities were the exclusive reason for his dismissal. The court also clarified that individual supervisors could not be held liable under T.C.A. § 50-1-304.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionSummary JudgmentEmployment LawSexual HarassmentTime Card FraudAt-Will EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySupervisor LiabilityWorkplace Misconduct
References
30
Case No. 01-14-00767-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Shirley Lenoir, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Christopher McKnight , Individually and as Next Friend of Nayla McKnight v. U.T. Physicians

This is a health care liability appeal where Shirley Lenoir and Christopher McKnight, individually and as representatives of the Estate of Shana Lenoir and Nayla McKnight, challenge the trial court's decision to grant U.T. Physicians' plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The appellants allege that U.T. Physicians' negligence in treating Shana Lenoir’s twin pregnancy, specifically the administration of a medically unnecessary and contraindicated progesterone injection by Nurse Matthews, proximately caused her death. U.T. Physicians claimed sovereign immunity as a governmental unit. Appellants argue that U.T. Physicians is a private non-profit corporation and an independent contractor, not entitled to sovereign immunity, and that a waiver of immunity under the Texas Tort Claims Act was sufficiently pled due to the use of tangible physical property.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental UnitIndependent ContractorTexas Tort Claims ActHealth Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNegligenceProgesterone InjectionTwin PregnancyWrongful Death
References
16
Case No. 21-0614
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2022

Cameron International Corporation A/K/A Cameron Systems Corporation v. Hugo A. Martinez and Dolores Ramirez, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of Javier Garcia, Jr., Javier Mayagoitia, Sr., Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Javier Mayagoitia, Jr., Julieta Taylor Osman Martinez And Jeanne Chavez, Individually and as Next Friend and Guardian of M. C., a Minor Child

This case addresses the vicarious liability of an employer for an oilfield worker's negligence during a car accident. The Supreme Court of Texas examined whether the "special mission" exception applied to the "coming-and-going" rule when the worker was driving to an oilfield site after completing personal errands like buying groceries and fuel. The Court held that a personal trip for necessities, not directed by the employer, does not constitute a special mission, thus reversing the appellate court's decision and reinstating the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the employer, Cameron International Corporation. The decision clarifies the distinction between common law vicarious liability and workers' compensation claims regarding the scope of employment.

Vicarious LiabilitySpecial Mission ExceptionComing and Going RuleEmployer NegligenceCourse and Scope of EmploymentOilfield AccidentPersonal ErrandsSummary JudgmentTexas LawRespondeat Superior
References
16
Case No. 13-05-00281-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2009

Dana Corporation v. Microtherm, Inc. and David E. Seitz, Individually

Microtherm Inc. sued Dana Corporation over defective thermistors used in water heaters, with David E. Seitz also suing individually for lost patent royalties. A jury found Dana liable for knowingly violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) and awarded Microtherm substantial damages, including lost profits and business value. Dana appealed, challenging liability and damage findings. The appellate court affirmed Dana's liability for breach of express warranty but found the evidence legally insufficient for the jury's divisible lost profit and lost value damages against Dana. The court remanded the attorneys' fees issue for retrial and affirmed the directed verdict against Seitz's individual claims due to lack of privity and the economic loss rule.

Products LiabilityBreach of WarrantyDTPAEconomic Loss RuleExpert TestimonyCausationDamagesLost ProfitsBusiness ValueAttorneys' Fees
References
81
Case No. 13-22-00115-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Charles DeRouen, Individually and DeRouen Express Services LLC D/B/A JC Express Services v. Eddie Pridgen, Individually and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC

The appellants, Charles DeRouen (individually) and DeRouen Express Services LLC, appealed a no-answer default judgment in favor of Eddie Pridgen (individually) and Eddie Pridgen Welding LLC. The appellate court vacated the trial court's amended default judgment from April 27, 2022, ruling that the trial court's plenary power had expired. The court reversed and remanded the original January 12, 2022 judgment concerning DeRouen individually due to ineffective substitute service. Furthermore, the claims brought by Pridgen Welding LLC were dismissed for lack of standing. However, the court affirmed the January 12, 2022 judgment against DeRouen Express Services LLC in favor of Pridgen, finding that the entity failed to establish a meritorious defense in its motion for new trial.

Default JudgmentSubstitute ServiceDue ProcessCorporate VeilStandingAppellate ProcedurePlenary PowerMotion for New TrialBreach of ContractContractual Dispute
References
47
Case No. NO. 14-17-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2018

Elizabeth Protas v. University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, David Callender, M.D. Individually and in His Official Capacity, and Danny Jacobs, M.D., Individually and in His Official Capacity

Dr. Elizabeth Protas, a tenured professor at The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), filed suit against UTMB and two individual doctors after being ordered to attend a course, suspended without pay, and deemed ineligible for an incentive plan. The trial court dismissed claims against the individual doctors and granted a plea to the jurisdiction for all claims, citing sovereign immunity. Protas appealed, raising issues regarding discovery denial, election of remedies under the Texas Tort Claims Act, due process violations, discrimination claims under the TCHRA, and a claim for declaratory judgment. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of individual claims and the plea to the jurisdiction for due process and declaratory judgment claims but reversed and remanded the discrimination claims, allowing Protas an opportunity to amend her pleadings.

Employment DiscriminationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionDue ProcessDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Tort Claims ActUltra Vires ClaimTexas Commission on Human Rights ActAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
42
Case No. 08-23-00355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2025

New Mission Home Care, LLC v. Tony Lawrence Read, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of George Read, and Bertha Acosta, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Teresa Acosta Read

New Mission Home Care, LLC appealed a $13 million jury verdict in a car-train collision case. The appellate court identified jury charge error regarding the definition of "course and scope" of employment, which was crucial for assessing New Mission's vicarious liability. Upon review, the court found legally insufficient evidence to support the appellees' vicarious liability claim based on the corrected course-and-scope definition. Furthermore, the court determined there was also legally insufficient evidence to sustain the direct liability claims, including negligent hiring, retaining, training, and supervision, against New Mission. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of New Mission.

Vicarious LiabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent TrainingNegligent SupervisionJury Charge ErrorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewCar-Train Collision
References
49
Case No. 1:95-CV-312
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 1996

Coffey v. CHATTANOOGA-HAMILTON CTY. HOSP. AUTH.

Glenn and Diane Coffey filed a lawsuit against Chattanooga-Hamilton County Hospital Authority (EMC) and individual defendants, alleging retaliatory discharge and outrageous conduct. Glenn Coffey claimed constructive discharge after reporting a colleague's illegal activities and poor work habits to supervisors, alleging a conspiracy to silence him. Defendants moved for partial dismissal of the claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the retaliatory discharge claim against all defendants, citing EMC's immunity under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act and the statute's employer-specific liability. Furthermore, the outrageous conduct claim against EMC was dismissed due to governmental immunity. However, the motion to dismiss the outrageous conduct claim against the individual defendants was denied, with plaintiffs granted leave to amend their complaint for this specific claim.

Retaliatory DischargeOutrageous ConductGovernmental Tort LiabilitySovereign ImmunityMotion to DismissConstructive DischargeEmployee Whistleblower ProtectionIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressEmployer LiabilityIndividual Liability
References
25
Case No. 04-17-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Robert B. James, DDS, Inc. Robert B. James, DDS, Individually Jean James, Individually And Alexis Mei Pyles, Individually v. Cassandra J. Elkins, DDS

Dr. Elkins sued her former employer and related individuals for defamation, business disparagement, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and conspiracy, alleging false statements about her financial misconduct. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), arguing their communications were protected free speech. The trial court denied these motions. This concurring and dissenting opinion argues that the TCPA applies to Dr. Elkins's claims and that she failed to present sufficient evidence for the elements of actual malice and outrageous conduct for her claims. Therefore, the dissenting judge would reverse the trial court's order in its entirety, dismiss Dr. Elkins's claims, and remand for a determination of attorneys' fees and costs. The opinion also finds that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction over Dr. Elkins's motions for discovery and continuance.

Texas LawDefamationBusiness DisparagementIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCivil ConspiracyTCPAAnti-SLAPPQualified PrivilegeActual MaliceEmployment Dispute
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 6,882 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