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. 02-22-00336-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2024

Boxer Property Management Corporation v. Teresa R. Dehnel

Teresa R. Dehnel sued Boxer Property Management Corporation for age and sex discrimination and retaliation after her termination. A jury found retaliation and awarded back pay, noneconomic, and exemplary damages. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's findings on retaliation and noneconomic damages. However, it reversed the exemplary damages due to a non-unanimous verdict and remanded the attorney's fees for recalculation.

RetaliationEmployment LawDiscriminationWrongful TerminationJury VerdictBack PayExemplary DamagesAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewCausation
References
9
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. McKinney

Clifford Ray McKinney, an escort for oversized loads, suffered a traumatic leg amputation after a low-hanging telephone line owned by Southwestern Bell Telephone Company (Bell) snagged on an oversized truck being escorted for Xerxes Corporation. A jury found Bell 75% negligent, Xerxes 15% negligent, and McKinney 10% negligent, awarding McKinney 75% of total damages. Bell appealed, challenging findings of negligence and proximate cause, while McKinney cross-appealed for 90% of damages, citing joint and several liability. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Bell had constructive notice of the defective line due to inadequate inspection practices. The court also ruled that McKinney's nonsuit of Xerxes constituted a settlement, releasing Xerxes from additional liability and validating the 75% damage apportionment.

NegligencePremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeProximate CauseComparative NegligenceJoint and Several LiabilitySettlementWorkers' CompensationTelephone LinesOverhead Obstruction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1999

Miller v. Long Island Rail Road

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for personal injuries. The defendant, Long Island Rail Road, and third-party defendants, Gary Nobile and Joseph Miller, appealed various aspects of the jury's verdict from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The appellate court modified the judgment by vacating the awards for past and future pain and suffering. It ordered a new trial on these specific damages unless the plaintiff agrees to a significant reduction in the awarded amounts for pain and suffering. If the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced damages, the judgment, as amended, is affirmed, otherwise, a new trial on those causes of action will proceed.

Personal InjuryDamagesJury VerdictAppealPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesLost EarningsContributionSufficiency of EvidenceConsistency of Verdicts
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chelli v. Banle Associates, LLC

This appellate decision from the Supreme Court, Queens County, addresses an action for personal injuries where the defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict. Key issues included whether the plaintiff sustained a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, impacting common-law indemnification, and the excessiveness of damages for future pain and suffering. The court, applying a new interpretation of "permanent total disability" from Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc., modified the judgment to grant common-law indemnification against the plaintiff's employer. Additionally, the damages award for future pain and suffering was deemed excessive, leading to a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff accepts a reduced amount.

Personal InjuryGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawCommon-Law IndemnificationPermanent Total DisabilityFuture Pain and SufferingDamages ReductionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewBrain Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2002

Machado v. City of New York

The defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, regarding damages for personal injuries. The case involved a construction worker who sustained severe injuries, including a spinal fracture and knee destruction, after a trench wall collapse in 1996, for which he obtained summary judgment against the City under Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's inadequate verdict on damages, ordering a new trial unless the City agreed to increased awards for past and future pain and suffering. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, agreeing that the jury's award deviated materially from reasonable compensation. This decision upholds the conditional directive for a new trial on damages.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentTrench CollapseLabor LawDamagesPain and SufferingJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialSpinal Fracture
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,036 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