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

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mocic v. Sumner County Emergency Medical Services

Kimberly Mocic, an EMT, sued Sumner County Emergency Medical Services (SCEMS) for pregnancy and sex discrimination, and retaliation under Title VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Mocic alleged a hostile work environment due to comments about her pregnancy and uniform, refusal of light duty work, and retaliation for filing an EEOC charge. The Court granted summary judgment for SCEMS on Mocic's uniform policy and light duty sex discrimination claims, finding she failed to establish an adverse employment action for the uniform policy and could not identify similarly situated male employees for the light duty claim. However, the Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment and retaliation claims, concluding that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding the gender basis and severity of harassment, and the adequacy of SCEMS's investigation and motivation for Mocic's termination.

Pregnancy DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIITennessee Human Rights ActSummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentUniform PolicyLight Duty Work
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baptist Memorial Healthcare System v. Casanova

Roger Casanova sued Baptist Healthcare Systems for retaliatory discharge and discrimination after being fired in November 1994 following a workplace injury. Casanova, placed on workers' compensation leave, was terminated after exceeding Baptist's six-month leave policy, leading him to allege violation of the Texas Workers' Compensation Anti-Retaliation Act. He also claimed Baptist discriminated by not providing a light duty position after his doctor released him with restrictions. The jury initially found in Casanova's favor, awarding significant damages for lost wages and mental anguish. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no evidence of non-uniform application of Baptist's leave policy or discrimination, as the light duty policy was only for on-the-job injuries and no suitable position was available.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationAbsentee Policy EnforcementLight Duty AccommodationCausation StandardLegal Sufficiency ReviewTexas Labor Code § 451.001Appellate ReversalMedical Work RestrictionsEmployee Leave Policy
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Austin v. Houston Lighting & Power Co.

The City of Austin appealed a take-nothing judgment against Houston Lighting & Power Company and Houston Industries, Inc. (HL&P) concerning a jointly owned nuclear power plant. Austin alleged breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), asserting HL&P's failures as project manager led to significant cost overruns. The trial court had sustained HL&P's special exceptions regarding an implied duty of skill and care and found no causal link between HL&P's actions and increased project costs. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the duty of reasonable skill and care was not implied in the participation agreement and that the jury's findings were supported by the evidence.

Breach of contractFraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActNuclear power plant constructionProject managementUtility industry disputeImplied duty of careJury instructionsHearsay evidenceFactual sufficiency of evidence
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1996

In Re the Arbitration Between Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. & Central Power & Light Co.

This case concerns a petition by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) to compel Central Power and Light (CPL) to arbitrate a dispute arising from an insurance policy and to stay CPL's ongoing state court action in Texas. NEIL, a Bermuda corporation, had issued an extra expense policy to CPL, a Texas corporation, which included a broad arbitration clause mandating arbitration in New York City for most disputes. Despite this, CPL filed a breach of contract suit in a Texas state court after NEIL denied its claim for losses. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected CPL's arguments for abstention and found that the arbitration clause was enforceable. Consequently, the court granted NEIL's petition, compelling arbitration and enjoining CPL from continuing its Texas state court proceedings.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract DisputeInsurance PolicyStay of ProceedingsJurisdictionAbstention DoctrineChoice of LawEnforceabilityFraud in the Inducement
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Cargill, Inc.

This action for retaliatory discharge involves a plaintiff who sustained a neck injury while working for the defendant. After filing a workers' compensation claim, which was settled, the plaintiff was released to work with a ten-pound lifting restriction. Upon attempting to return, he was informed no work was available. The plaintiff then filed a complaint for retaliatory discharge, alleging the defendant maintained a discriminatory 'light duty' policy. A jury verdict favored the plaintiff, awarding both compensatory and punitive damages. However, the appellate court found insufficient material evidence to support the claim of retaliatory discharge, particularly regarding the defendant's alleged light duty policy for permanently disabled workers or discriminatory application based on workers' compensation claims. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the judgment and dismissed the action.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimJury Verdict ReviewAppellate ReversalMaterial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityLifting RestrictionsLight Duty PolicyDiscriminatory Employment PracticesBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. 13-23-00194-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2024

Bernardino Frausto v. RC Industries, LLC

Appellant Bernardino Frausto appealed a trial court’s summary judgment in favor of appellee RC Industries, LLC (RCI). Frausto, an RCI employee, sustained a head injury at work, leading to a workers’ compensation claim. Following his injury, RCI placed Frausto on light duty at their Dilley office and informed him that transportation, previously provided for field work, would no longer be available. Frausto subsequently failed to report for his light duty assignment for an extended period, citing lack of transportation. RCI interpreted these unexcused absences as a resignation, adhering to their attendance policy. Frausto then sued RCI for wrongful termination, alleging retaliation for filing his workers’ compensation claim under the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that RCI presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Frausto’s termination based on his violation of a uniformly enforced attendance policy, and Frausto failed to provide evidence of pretextual motives.

Workers' Compensation RetaliationWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealAttendance PolicyLight Duty WorkEmployee TransportationTexas Labor CodeCausal LinkNon-Discriminatory ReasonPretext Evidence
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sosa v. Central Power & Light Co.

The Sosas sued Central Power & Light, Houston Power & Light, and General Electric for the wrongful death of Mr. Sosa, alleging liver disease from toxic chemical exposure in the early 1970s. Mr. Sosa died on June 1, 1991, and the Sosas filed suit on June 1, 1993. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing the Sosas' First Amended Original Petition's allegations showed Mr. Sosa was incapacitated for twenty years, implying knowledge of injury. The Sosas attempted to file a Second Amended Original Petition without leave of court to invoke the discovery rule, but it was struck as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the Second Amended Original Petition was untimely, leave to file was properly denied, the First Amended Original Petition's allegations constituted judicial admissions, and thus, the limitations defense barred the claim as Mr. Sosa was aware of his injuries more than four years prior to his death.

Wrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmended PleadingDiscovery RuleJudicial AdmissionsToxic ExposureLiver DiseaseAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05661 [221 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Keilitz v. Light Tower Fiber N.Y., Inc.

Christopher Keilitz, an electrician working for Hellman Electric Corp., was injured when a vacuum fell into a manhole and struck him during the installation of fiber optic cables. Keilitz sued Light Tower Fiber New York, Inc., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., and Empire City Subway (ECS) under New York Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially denied Keilitz's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims and dismissed claims against the defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Keilitz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against ECS and Light Tower. The court determined that Keilitz's work constituted an 'altering' activity under the statute and that the falling vacuum presented an elevation-related risk, rendering other related claims moot.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskManhole AccidentFiber Optic InstallationAlteration WorkAppellate DivisionThird-Party ClaimContractual Indemnification
References
9
Case No. W2013-00696-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2014

Clementine Newman v. Karla Davis, Commissioner of Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, and Memphis Light, Gas, and Water

Clementine Newman appealed a trial court's order, which affirmed a decision denying her unemployment benefits. Newman was terminated by Memphis Light, Gas, and Water (MLGW) for failing to provide adequate medical documentation for a prolonged absence following a non-work-related accident. The court found that her condition did not qualify as a 'serious medical condition' under the FMLA, and thus her leave was not protected. The Commissioner's Designee and the trial court concluded Newman was disqualified due to misconduct for violating MLGW's leave policy and for failing to meet the medical exception requirements for unemployment benefits. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, finding substantial and material evidence to support the denial of benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployment TerminationMedical Leave PolicyWork-Related MisconductFamily and Medical Leave Act (FMLA)Appellate Court ReviewAdministrative DecisionPro Se LitigationSick Leave ViolationMedical Documentation Requirements
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 5,673 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