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

Anderson v. Standard Register Co.

This retaliatory discharge case revolves around Ms. Anderson, an employee who was terminated by her employer, Standard, due to a facially neutral absence control policy after sustaining a work-related injury and being absent for over 26 weeks. Ms. Anderson subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging that her discharge was in retaliation for asserting a workers' compensation claim. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding no direct evidence of retaliatory intent and upholding the neutral absence policy. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed these judgments, concluding that the employer's policy did not constitute a 'device' to circumvent workers' compensation obligations and that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between her claim and her termination.

Retaliatory dischargeAbsence control policyWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentCausal relationshipEmployment-at-willPublic policy exceptionSubstantial factor testNeutral policyDisability benefits
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2007

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. St. Barnabas Community Enterprises, Inc.

This case concerns the arbitrability of disputes between an unnamed petitioner and its insured, St. Barnabas, over retrospective premiums and credits from workers' compensation policies covering 1995-1998 and 2000-2001. The Supreme Court's order, which compelled arbitration and denied St. Barnabas's cross-motion to dismiss, was modified. The appellate court affirmed arbitration for the 1995-1998 policies due to explicit arbitration clauses. However, arbitration for the 2000-2001 policies was stayed as they lacked such clauses and provided for litigation. Claims of fraudulent inducement related to the earlier policies were referred to arbitrators, as they did not specifically challenge the arbitration agreement itself.

ArbitrationWorkers' Compensation PoliciesRetrospective PremiumsInsurance DisputesPolicy InterpretationFraudulent InducementContract LawNew York CourtsAppellate DecisionJurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catania v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

This case involves a submitted controversy under sections 546 to 548 of the Civil Practice Act, concerning whether a liability policy issued to John Schiro extends coverage to the plaintiff for injuries sustained by Schiro's wife. Schiro's wife alleged negligence against her spouse in the operation of his vehicle during his employment with the plaintiff. The court analyzed Insurance Law section 167 (subd. 3), which states that policies do not cover liability for spousal injuries unless expressly provided. Citing Morgan v. Greater New York Taxpayers Mut. Ins. Assn., the court treated the policy as if issued to the plaintiff alone, determining that Schiro's wife is not the plaintiff's spouse, thus making section 167 (subd. 3) inapplicable. The decision, supported by Manhattan Cas. Co. v. Cholakis, concluded that the insurer is liable. Therefore, judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the defendant to defend the pending negligence action and pay any judgment up to the policy limits.

Liability PolicyInsurance CoverageSpousal LiabilityCivil Practice ActInsurance LawNegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentAutomobile AccidentEmployer LiabilityInterspousal Immunity
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trojcak v. Valiant Millwrighting & Warehousing, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning the proper cancellation of an employer's workers' compensation policy. A claimant was injured in September 1995, leading to a dispute when the carrier claimed the policy was canceled in June 1995 due to nonpayment. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled the policy was improperly canceled, citing Banking Law § 576 and estoppel. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the cancellation adhered to Banking Law § 576's notice requirements. This appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the statutory notice provisions were met and that the finance agency and carrier were not estopped from canceling the policy despite prior acceptance of late payments.

Workers' Compensation Policy CancellationBanking Law § 576Estoppel DoctrineNotice RequirementsLate PaymentsInsurance Coverage DisputePolicy DefaultAppellate ReviewStatutory CompliancePremium Finance Agreement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tamez v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London

This case concerns an appeal from a summary judgment regarding an accidental death insurance policy obtained by National Convenience Stores, Inc. (NCS) on the lives of its employees, Ramon Tamez and Cheryl McCarty. The families of Tamez and McCarty (appellants) sued NCS, Lloyd’s (insurer), Ronald Seaborg, and International Accident Facilities, Inc. (IAF) after NCS received and later returned policy benefits. Appellants claimed NCS lacked an insurable interest and was not a proper beneficiary under the Texas Insurance Code, seeking the proceeds through various claims including constructive trust, breach of contract, and conspiracy. The appellate court found that appellants had standing to challenge NCS's insurable interest and determined that NCS, as an employer, lacked an insurable interest in the lives of its general employees and was not a proper beneficiary under the Texas Insurance Code for this type of policy. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment in favor of appellees on claims related to insurable interest, proper beneficiary, conversion, breach of contract, conspiracy, and constructive trust. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment concerning claims of breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing and violations of Article 21.21 of the Texas Insurance Code, as appellants were considered third-party claimants without standing for those specific claims.

Insurance LawInsurable InterestSummary JudgmentTexas Insurance CodeAccidental Death PolicyGroup InsuranceConstructive TrustBreach of ContractConspiracyDuty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
References
29
Case No. NO. 14-04-00197-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2005

Jake A. English v. Dillard Department Stores Inc.

Jake A. English appealed a summary judgment granted to Dillard Department Stores, Inc. on his retaliatory discharge claim. English was terminated after six months on a leave of absence (LOA) due to an on-the-job injury, which Dillard's claimed was per its neutral LOA policy. English argued the termination was premature by one day and that the policy wasn't uniformly applied. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding Dillard's presented a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (uniform enforcement of LOA policy) and English failed to provide sufficient controverting evidence of retaliatory motive, as his claims of premature termination and discriminatory application were not supported by evidence.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary Judgment AppealLeave of Absence PolicyEmployment TerminationTexas Labor LawAppellate Court DecisionCausal LinkDiscriminatory Policy ApplicationNeutral Absence Control Policy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fenley v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, Inc.

Kenneth C. Fenley, Sr. appealed the trial court's granting of Mrs. Baird’s Bakeries, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment in a suit alleging wrongful discharge for filing a workers' compensation claim under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 451.001(1). Fenley argued the trial court erred and that Mrs. Baird's absence control policy had a disparate impact. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Mrs. Baird's had established a neutrally applied absence-control policy as the reason for termination. Fenley failed to produce controverting evidence of a retaliatory motive or demonstrate that the policy violated the statute or caused a disparate impact.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDisparate ImpactAbsence Control PolicyTexas Labor CodeCausationCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. NO. 03-02-00652-CV & NO. 03-02-00693-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2003

Marble Falls Independent School District v. Eddie G. Shell on Behalf of His Minor Children, Morgan Shell and Alex Shell

The Marble Falls Independent School District implemented a drug-testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities, which was challenged by Eddie Shell on behalf of his children. Shell argued the policy violated their religious freedom, privacy, and due process rights under the Texas Constitution. The trial court initially granted a temporary injunction against the school district. However, the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, reversed this decision, finding that Shell failed to demonstrate a probable right to recover. The appellate court concluded that the drug policy was neutral, rationally related to legitimate state interests in student health and safety, and involved only a minimal intrusion on privacy, thus dissolving the temporary injunction.

Drug testing policyExtracurricular activitiesReligious freedomPrivacy rightsDue processTexas ConstitutionTemporary injunctionSchool districtAppellate reviewAbuse of discretion
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

Jones v. Hamilton County

Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Hamilton County, Tennessee, from continuing its practice of opening County Commission meetings with prayer, arguing it violates the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. After the suit was filed, Hamilton County adopted a formal prayer policy. District Judge HARRY S. MATTICE, JR. denied the motion for preliminary injunction. The Court ruled that the Lemon test does not apply to legislative prayer, instead using the standard set by Marsh v. Chambers. It found the County's new policy facially neutral and that the limited post-policy evidence of two Christian prayers was insufficient to prove a likelihood of irreparable harm for an 'as-applied' constitutional violation. The litigation is set to proceed on the merits.

First AmendmentEstablishment ClauseLegislative PrayerPreliminary InjunctionMunicipal LiabilityReligious FreedomSeparation of Church and StateConstitutional LawJudicial ReviewFacial Challenge
References
57
Showing 1-10 of 2,566 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