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. 05-12-01102-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2014

Ronald Kinabrew v. Inergy Propane, LLC

Ronald Kinabrew sued Inergy Propane, LLC for retaliatory discharge after his termination, alleging it was retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Inergy contended the termination resulted from the neutral application of its leave-of-absence policy, as Kinabrew's absence exceeded the twelve-week maximum. The trial court granted summary judgment for Inergy, dismissing Kinabrew's claim. Kinabrew appealed, arguing there was a causal connection between his workers' compensation claim and his termination, and that Inergy's leave policy was not uniformly applied. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Kinabrew failed to provide controverting evidence that Inergy's neutral leave policy was not uniformly enforced or that his termination was retaliatory.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentLeave of absence policyUniform enforcementCausal linkLabor codeEmployment lawMedical leaveTexas Court of Appeals
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. Stanley Works, Inc.

Antonio Alonso sued his employer, The Stanley Works, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge after his employment was terminated while on medical leave for a work-related injury, claiming it was due to his workers' compensation claim. Stanley Works moved for summary judgment, asserting Alonso was terminated under a uniformly enforced six-month leave of absence policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Alonso failed to provide evidence that his termination would not have occurred but for his workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLeave of Absence PolicyUniform EnforcementTexas Labor CodeEmployment TerminationAbsence Control PolicyAppellate ReviewWorkplace Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kingsaire, Inc., Dba Kings Aire, Inc. v. Jorge Melendez

Appellant Kingsaire, Inc. appeals a jury verdict in favor of its former employee, Jorge Melendez, in a worker's compensation retaliation and breach of contract suit. Melendez was injured and filed a worker's compensation claim, but was subsequently placed on FMLA leave and terminated by Kings Aire. Kings Aire argued its actions were due to a uniformly enforced absence control policy, but Melendez countered that the termination was retaliatory and in violation of the policy's grace period. The appellate court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding sufficient evidence of retaliatory intent and that Kings Aire did not uniformly apply its absence control policy.

Worker's CompensationRetaliationWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractFMLAAbsence Control PolicyDamages AwardJury VerdictLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
29
Case No. 08-01-00442-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

Denney, Ida Ramirez v. Dillard Texas Operating Limited Partnership D/B/A Dillard's

Appellant Ida Ramirez Denney sued Dillard's under the Texas Labor Code Ch. 451, alleging wrongful termination after filing a workers' compensation claim. Denney was terminated due to Dillard's policy of discharging employees absent for over six months, despite having complied with all leave regulations. The core issue on appeal was whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding impeaching testimony that challenged Dillard's claim of uniformly applying its absence-control policy. The Court of Appeals found the exclusion of this evidence erroneous and prejudicial, especially given the jury's explicit question regarding exceptions to the leave policy. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationWrongful TerminationEmployer RetaliationLeave of Absence PolicyImpeaching TestimonyEvidentiary ExclusionUniform Application of PolicyCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
22
Case No. 13-05-055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Scott Cerre v. Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP

Scott Cerre, an employee of Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP, was injured on the job and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He was later terminated under Odfjell's absence-control policy after taking a six-month leave of absence. Cerre sued Odfjell, alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Odfjell. On appeal, Cerre contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both his discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Odfjell successfully negated elements of the discrimination claim and that Cerre's termination was due to a uniformly enforced absence-control policy, not retaliation.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCausal ConnectionHarassment
References
18
Case No. 2018-02-0048
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2018

Morrison, Leonard v. Walmart

Leonard Morrison, a Walmart loader, sustained a back injury on September 2, 2017, leading to light-duty restrictions from Greeneville Urgent Care and Dr. Nicholas Grimaldi. Despite Walmart offering alternative duty, Morrison alleged violations of his restrictions and insufficient work hours, while supervisors claimed he unilaterally violated restrictions and took unexcused absences. Morrison's request for a leave of absence due to pain was denied by Walmart, citing a lack of medical proof, resulting in his termination for not calling in during the pending leave period. He sought temporary disability benefits, arguing Walmart's non-compliance and his pain-induced inability to work full-time. The Court ultimately denied Morrison's request, finding insufficient evidence to prove entitlement to either temporary total disability, due to the absence of expert medical opinion, or temporary partial disability, as his self-limited hours and failure to adhere to company policy justified his termination.

Temporary Disability BenefitsBack InjuryWork RestrictionsUnexcused AbsencesTerminationMedical OpinionCausal ConnectionWorkplace RulesExpedited HearingWorkers' Compensation Claims
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc.

Johnny A. Johnson, Jr. appealed the trial court's directed verdict in favor of St. Francis Hospital, Inc. in a retaliatory discharge case. Johnson claimed he was terminated for filing workers' compensation claims after sustaining two back injuries. The hospital asserted he was discharged for being unavailable for work due to lifting restrictions and his refusal to accept a leave of absence according to hospital policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no causal link between Johnson's workers' compensation claims and his termination. The court concluded that Johnson was discharged because he chose not to apply for a leave of absence, rendering him unavailable for his job duties.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimEmployment terminationMedical restrictionsLeave of absence policyEmployee at willCausalityPrima facie caseDirected verdictAppeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between United Environmental Workers & Buffalo Sewer Authority

An arbitrator determined that the Buffalo Sewer Authority (BSA) violated a collective bargaining agreement by refusing Robert Reinig sick days from a sick leave bank. Special Term subsequently vacated this award, arguing that it contravened the public policy against double recovery, as Mr. Reinig had also received workers' compensation benefits for the same period, indicating his absence was job-related. The appellate court disagreed, reversing Special Term's order. They emphasized that an arbitrator's award should not be vacated for errors of law or fact. Furthermore, the court found that the public policy protecting employers from double liability under Workers' Compensation Law was not violated, as the BSA did not contribute to the sick leave bank from which Mr. Reinig drew his sick days.

Arbitration AwardCollective BargainingSick Leave BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPublic Policy ExceptionDouble Recovery ProhibitionEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReversalJudicial ReviewGrievance Procedure
References
4
Case No. 01-02-00872-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2003

Michael Hardy, John Anderson, Kenneth Mosley & Donta Jackson v. AAA Cooper Transportation

Appellants, Michael Hardy, John Anderson, Kenneth Mosley, and Donta Jackson, sued AAA Cooper Transportation, Inc. for retaliatory termination, alleging their dismissals violated Texas Labor Code section 451.002 after they filed workers' compensation claims. Cooper's policy included 12 weeks of FMLA leave and an additional 60 days of unpaid extended leave; appellants were terminated for not returning to work after exhausting both. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Cooper. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas affirmed the judgment, concluding that Cooper's evidence successfully negated the element of causation, demonstrating that the terminations were due to a uniformly enforced absence policy rather than a retaliatory motive related to the workers' compensation claims.

Retaliatory TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary Judgment AffirmedFamily Medical Leave ActEmployee Absence PolicyCausation ElementEmployment DiscriminationTexas Court of AppealsWrongful TerminationAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Continental Air Lines, Corp.

This case addresses claims for accrued but unused sick leave filed by various unions and non-union individuals against Continental Air Lines, Inc. and Texas International Airlines, Inc., which are debtors in a Chapter 11 reorganization. The debtors sought summary judgment to disallow these claims for terminated employees, arguing that neither collective bargaining agreements nor the Corporate Policy Manual provided for cash payment of unused sick leave upon termination. The court affirmed its jurisdiction over such claims, rejecting arguments for deferral to a system board of adjustment. It found that the relevant agreements and past practices did not create a right to payment for unused sick leave upon termination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the debtors, disallowing all sick leave claims by or on behalf of terminated Continental employees.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 11 ReorganizationAccrued Sick Leave ClaimsEmployee BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementsSummary JudgmentJurisdiction DisputeArbitrationTerminated EmployeesCorporate Policy Manual
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 4,616 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