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

Martin v. Texas Dental Plans, Inc.

Charles Martin, a former typesetter for Texas Dental Plans, Inc., sued his employer for wrongful termination after he was fired shortly after filing a workers' compensation claim and an OSHA complaint regarding unsafe computer monitors. The employer contended termination was due to poor performance and absenteeism. A jury found Texas Dental violated the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act but awarded no actual damages, leading to a take-nothing judgment at the trial court despite a finding of willful conduct and $100,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, the court affirmed the denial of monetary and punitive damages but reversed the trial court's decision, ordering Martin's reinstatement. The appellate court clarified that reinstatement is a mandatory remedy when a Labor Code violation is found, irrespective of actual monetary damages.

Wrongful TerminationRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ActReinstatementPunitive DamagesMental AnguishTexas Labor CodeActual DamagesEquitable RemediesJury Findings
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of San Benito v. Ebarb

This case concerns an interlocutory appeal filed by the City of San Benito after the trial court denied its plea to the jurisdiction. Law enforcement officers, the appellees, sued the City alleging they were not compensated according to a city ordinance (2119) and sought damages for lost wages and benefits. The City argued that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the officers failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that sovereign immunity barred their claim for monetary damages. The appellate court found that while a declaratory judgment on an ordinance's validity wouldn't require administrative exhaustion, the officers' primary aim was monetary damages, which constituted a suit against a governmental unit without legislative consent. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's decision, dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentPlea to JurisdictionAdministrative ExhaustionMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Local Government CodeMonetary DamagesPublic EmployeesSalary DisputeInterlocutory Appeal
References
43
Case No. 07-18-00324-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2019

David Sloan Federal Public Defender's Office, Lubbock, Texas Greg Abbott, Governor of the State of Texas Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas Steven C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety Sheriff Cliff Harris, Pecos County Pecos County Sheriff's Department v. John Alan Conroy

Steven C. McCraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS), appealed the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction in a case brought by John Alan Conroy. Conroy, a pro se inmate, sought electronic recordings of an interrogation related to a federal child pornography conviction and $20,000,000 in damages for alleged constitutional rights violations under the Texas Constitution. McCraw argued sovereign immunity barred Conroy's claims for monetary damages. The Court of Appeals construed Conroy's petition as a suit for a writ of mandamus under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) regarding the disclosure of the recordings, which is not barred by sovereign immunity. The court affirmed the denial of McCraw's plea to the jurisdiction regarding the mandamus action but modified the order to dismiss Conroy's claim for monetary damages due to sovereign immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityPublic Information ActMandamusDue ProcessTrial Court JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Government CodeTexas Family CodePro Se LitigantDeclaratory Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2016

James v. City of New York

This case involves a petition filed by two mothers of autistic children and the Public Advocate for the City of New York, seeking court orders against the City, the Department of Education (DOE), and its Chancellor. The petitioners requested that the DOE provide functioning air-conditioned buses for disabled children in District 75 public schools and establish systems to monitor bus company compliance, alleging violations of the Administrative Code and the New York City Human Rights Law. They also sought damages. Respondents cross-moved to dismiss. The court ruled that the Public Advocate has the capacity to sue, but not against the City of New York, granting the cross-motion in part. The court also denied the mothers’ request to file a late notice of claim without prejudice, requiring them to file a proper motion with specific details regarding monetary damages, and noted that bus companies are necessary parties for claims of monetary damages.

Disabled ChildrenSpecial Education TransportationSchool Bus Air ConditioningPublic Advocate Capacity to SueNotice of ClaimDepartment of Education ResponsibilityNew York City Human Rights LawAdministrative Code ViolationsJudicial ReviewCross-Motion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kee

Tan-ja Kee was fired by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in response to filing and settling a workers' compensation claim. Kee sued Wal-Mart for discriminatory firing under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307c, seeking actual and exemplary damages. A jury awarded Kee $4,500 in actual damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages, finding Wal-Mart acted with malice. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the recoverability of exemplary damages and the sufficiency of evidence for malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing precedent that exemplary damages are recoverable and concluding that the jury's finding of malice and the damage award were supported by sufficient evidence and not excessive.

discriminatory firingworkers' compensationexemplary damagesmaliceTexas lawretaliatory dischargeemployee rightsemployer liabilityjury verdictappellate review
References
5
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
Case No. 1:06-cv-01137
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2009

Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors

Plaintiff Douglas Baker filed a civil action against Defendant Windsor Republic Doors (WRD) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tennessee Handicap Act (THA), and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. A jury found WRD liable for both claims, awarding Baker back pay and compensatory damages. The Court granted judgment for WRD on the discrimination claim but sustained the retaliation claim. This order addresses the availability of compensatory damages for ADA retaliation claims, an issue with conflicting legal authority among federal courts. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, concluded that compensatory damages are available for ADA retaliation claims and found that the THRA and THA also provide alternative grounds for sustaining the award. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding compensatory damages was denied, and the jury's $29,500 compensatory award was upheld.

Americans with Disabilities ActADA RetaliationTennessee Handicap ActTennessee Human Rights ActCompensatory DamagesJury AwardStatutory InterpretationDisability DiscriminationCivil RightsEmployment Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Missouri Valley, Inc. v. Putman

Haskell B. Putman, Jr., an employee of Missouri Valley, Inc., died after falling through an unbarricaded hole at a construction site in Potter County. His beneficiaries, including his widow Juanita Lucille Putman, brought a wrongful death action seeking exemplary damages from Missouri Valley, Inc., alleging gross negligence. The jury found Missouri Valley, Inc. guilty of gross negligence and awarded $50,000 in exemplary damages. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the gross negligence findings. The court clarified that Texas law requires an "entire want of care" or "conscious indifference" to justify exemplary damages, which was not met given Missouri Valley's established safety program, thereby negating the recovery of exemplary damages.

Wrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Construction AccidentAppellate ReviewConscious IndifferenceSafety Program
References
7
Case No. 13-04-358-CV, 13-04-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Montemayor v. Ortiz

This consolidated appeal involves a declaratory judgment action and counterclaims for damages. Appellants G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham Jr. sought to collect a 1990 judgment against Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez and Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada by claiming Becky Ortiz's business, Schor's, was community property subject to levy. They obtained an ex parte receivership, prompting Ortiz to file counterclaims for wrongful conduct including abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgments for Ortiz, ruling the 1990 debt was contractual and Schor's was her special community property, not liable for Celada's debt. A jury awarded Ortiz actual and punitive damages on her counterclaims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgments in favor of Ortiz, but reversed and rendered the judgment for damages, finding no legal sufficiency of evidence for any of Ortiz's tort claims, thereby also precluding punitive damages and mental anguish awards.

Declaratory JudgmentEx Parte ReceivershipCommunity PropertySpecial Community PropertyTortious ConductAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment Review
References
0
Case No. M2017-00862-COA-R3-CV, T20140069, T20140070
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2018

In Re Estate of Sylvia Marene Tolbert v. State ot Tennessee

Claimants Sylvia Marlene Tolbert and Alvin Wayne Tindell asserted monetary claims against the State of Tennessee for personal injuries and property damage resulting from an automobile accident with a state employee. The Tennessee Claims Commission found the State liable and awarded compensatory damages based on the claimants’ unadjusted medical bills. The State appealed, arguing that the Claims Commission erred by not considering insurance adjustments to medical bills. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision, holding that the collateral source rule precludes the introduction of evidence of insurance adjustments and that the term 'actual damages' in the Tennessee Claims Commission Act is synonymous with 'compensatory damages', thus not abrogating the common law collateral source rule. Therefore, the unadjusted medical bills were properly used to calculate damages.

Collateral Source RuleMedical Expenses DamagesInsurance AdjustmentsTennessee Claims Commission ActPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentState Employee LiabilityCompensatory DamagesActual DamagesStatutory Abrogation
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 4,176 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