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

Lowe v. Lowe

Kerri Lowe appeals a default judgment in a divorce case from July 1996, where Jerome Jason Lowe was granted sole managing conservatorship of their children, child support, and a division of the marital estate. Mrs. Lowe's attorney, Greg Donnell, failed to appear for trial, having allegedly misled her about a continuance. The trial court denied Mrs. Lowe's motion for a new trial. The appellate court, applying the three-prong Craddock test for new trials after default judgments, found that Mrs. Lowe met all requirements: her failure to appear was due to an accident or mistake (her lawyer's misrepresentation), she presented a meritorious defense regarding child custody, and a new trial would not unduly delay or prejudice Mr. Lowe. Consequently, the court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for a new trial. The opinion also critically discusses the appropriateness of the Craddock test in suits affecting the parent-child relationship.

Default judgmentNew trialCraddock testParent-child relationshipDivorce proceedingsChild custodyAttorney negligenceMisrepresentationAppellate reversalTexas law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1992

Lowe v. State

Claimant Ronald Lowe, an inmate, sustained severe injuries at a correctional facility's sawmill due to the State's failure to provide adequate safety measures. He and his wife filed claims, with the Court of Claims finding the State 100% at fault and awarding damages. On appeal, the State argued claimant's negligence and claimants sought increased compensation. The appellate court affirmed the judgments, determining the claimant was not contributorily negligent given the hazardous work conditions and the inadequacy of tools provided. The court also found the damages awarded were appropriate, citing the claimant's prior work history and lack of substantial impact on his earning capacity due to the injury.

Inmate injuryCorrectional facility accidentSawmill accidentWorkplace safetyNegligence of StateDamages assessmentLost earningsComparative negligenceOSHA violationsAppellate review
References
10
Case No. 2-06-132-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2007

William Lowe, M.D. v. Mary Hernandez

Mary Hernandez, an employee of Calico Corners, sustained a work-related wrist injury and was treated by Dr. William Lowe. Dr. Lowe completed Texas Workers’ Compensation Work Status Reports (WSRs) throughout her recovery. Following a Functional Capacity Examination (FCE), Dr. Lowe mistakenly reported a permanent five-pound lifting restriction for Hernandez instead of fifty pounds, despite the FCE showing she could lift up to fifty pounds for some tasks. Calico Corners terminated Hernandez's employment based on this erroneous permanent restriction, as her job required lifting up to fifty pounds. Hernandez sued Dr. Lowe for negligence, claiming his misreporting and failure to correct the error caused her termination. A jury found Dr. Lowe 100% negligent, awarding Hernandez $179,589 in damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of Dr. Lowe's negligence and rejecting his arguments regarding expert testimony, contributory negligence, and charge errors.

References
22
Case No. M2020-01480-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

State of Tennessee v. Joshua V. Lowe

Joshua V. Lowe appealed the Maury County Circuit Court's order of $52,000 in restitution, arguing the court failed to adequately consider his ability to pay during his six-year probationary sentence for theft. Lowe, an unemployed convicted felon, claimed his conviction significantly restricted his employment prospects in his prior fields of welding and coal mining, making the substantial restitution payments infeasible. However, the trial court had meticulously reviewed Lowe's financial history, including his prior high earnings and potential in cosmetology, concluding he possessed the capacity to pay the $723 monthly installments. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed this judgment, determining the trial court did not abuse its discretion, and highlighted Lowe's option to petition for restitution adjustment if his financial situation genuinely warranted it. This decision underscores the court's balance between victim compensation and the defendant's future earning potential.

TheftRestitutionProbationCriminal AppealAbility to PayAbuse of DiscretionPecuniary LossSentencingFelony ConvictionEmployment Limitations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Green v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.

Robert Green was terminated by Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. for alleged sexual harassment after filing a workers' compensation claim for a hand injury. He sued Lowe's, arguing his termination was in retaliation for the workers' compensation claim and that the sexual harassment charges were a pretext. The trial court granted summary judgment for Lowe's. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Green failed to raise a fact issue demonstrating a causal link between his workers' compensation claim and his termination. The court found no evidence of a negative attitude towards his injury, no failure to adhere to company policy by Lowe's, no less favorable treatment compared to similarly situated employees, and insufficient temporal proximity between the claim and termination.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimSexual harassment policySummary judgment appealCausal linkPretextCircumstantial evidenceTemporal proximityEmployment lawWrongful termination
References
25
Case No. 01-05-00937-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

Robert Green v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.

Robert Green sued Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, after Lowe's fired him for alleged sexual harassment. The trial court granted summary judgment for Lowe's. On appeal, Green contended fact issues existed regarding the causal link between his termination and workers' compensation claim, whether Lowe's reason was pretextual, and entitlement to punitive damages. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Green failed to raise a fact issue as to the causal link between his workers' compensation claim and termination, noting that four and a half months between the claim and termination, along with intervening sexual harassment allegations, was not sufficient temporal proximity.

Workers' CompensationRetaliationWrongful TerminationSexual HarassmentSummary JudgmentCausal LinkTemporal ProximityEmployment LawTexas AppealsCircumstantial Evidence
References
24
Case No. 12-14-00155-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Brenda Brewer, Deanna Meador, Penny Adams and Sabra Curry v. Lowe's Home Centers Inc.

There are two glaring infirmities in the argument presented by Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc. (“Lowe’s”) in its brief to this Court. First, Lowe’s misunderstands or misapplies the standard of review for a directed verdict, arguing how evidence 'weighs' in its favor, while the Court's task is to determine if there is at least a scintilla of evidence to support the Cont’l Coffee factors. Second, Lowe's fails to distinguish Echostar Satellite, L.L.C. v. Aguilar, a highly relevant case where the court found sufficient evidence of retaliatory motive when a company deviated from its policies by forcing an employee with workers' compensation claims to work against restrictions or be fired, and failing to provide written notice of leave expiration. The appellants argue that similar deviations and negative attitudes from Lowe's management, including forcing employees to work against light duty restrictions and placing them on unauthorized 'personal leave' without their knowledge, demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the stated reason for termination was a false pretext. Appellants assert that the directed verdict was error and the judgment should be reversed and remanded for a full trial.

Workers' CompensationRetaliationDirected VerdictStandard of ReviewCircumstantial EvidenceCont'l Coffee FactorsLight DutyLeave of Absence PolicyPretextTexas Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. Bloomberg

This case involved a CPLR article 78 special proceeding initiated by various community organizations and residents against the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Petitioners sought to annul the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for a significant rezoning of a 111-block area in Manhattan. They contended that the DCP failed to adequately assess the socioeconomic and cumulative impacts of the rezoning on low-income communities of color. The court, presided over by Walter B. Tolub, J., reviewed whether the agency had conducted a "hard look" and provided a "reasoned elaboration" for its determinations as required by SEQRA and CEQR. Finding no evidence that respondents failed in their obligations, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

RezoningEnvironmental Impact StatementSocioeconomic ImpactDisplacementAffordable HousingUrban PlanningCommunity DevelopmentEnvironmental Review Act (SEQRA)City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
References
17
Case No. 14-07-00953-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2009

Lowe's Home Centers Inc & Natasha Tanner v. GSW Marketing, Inc. F/K/A Salesmaker, Inc. D/B/A CSA Services Southwest and Snow Mountain Construction, Inc

Natasha Tanner, an employee of Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., was injured when a toilet tank fell from an elevated display and struck her head. She, along with Lowe's which intervened to assert subrogation rights, sued multiple entities including Snow Mountain Construction, Inc. (who built the display) and GSW Marketing, Inc. f/k/a Salesmakers, Inc. d/b/a CSA Services Southwest (who maintained the display) for negligent activity and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Snow Mountain and Salesmakers. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Tanner provided no evidence that either company had a duty to discover the toilet was incorrectly assembled or that they were engaged in ongoing negligent activities at the time of her injury. The court determined that the defendants' contractual obligations did not extend to inspecting the internal assembly of the toilets.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationDuty to InspectIndependent ContractorDisplay AssemblyProduct SafetyCausationTexas Appellate Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clemente v. Blumenberg

In this case, plaintiff Deborah Clemente, injured in a rear-end collision, alleged a herniated disk, supported by her treating neurologist and MRI. Defendant Ernest J. Blumenberg sought to introduce a biomedical engineer, M. Kenneth Salzer, as an expert to argue the low-impact collision could not cause such injuries. The court conducted a Frye hearing to assess the engineer's methodology, which relied on repair costs and photographs to calculate vehicle velocity change. Finding this methodology unscientific, untested, and not generally accepted, the court precluded Salzer's testimony. The judge emphasized the gatekeeping role to exclude unreliable scientific and technical evidence under both Frye and Daubert/Kumho standards, noting the engineer lacked medical qualifications for injury causation opinions.

Expert TestimonyBiomedical EngineeringBiomechanicsFrye HearingDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardAdmissibility of EvidenceScientific EvidenceLow-Impact CollisionPersonal Injury
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 1,411 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