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. 03-12-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2013

Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. D/B/A American Pharmacies v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Thomas Suehs, Solely in His Official Capacity as Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission

Southwest Pharmacy Solutions, Inc. d/b/a American Pharmacies appealed a trial court's judgment granting a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and its Executive Commissioner. American Pharmacies challenged HHSC's rulemaking obligations and specific rules related to pharmacy benefits under the Texas Medicaid managed care (MMC) program. They argued that HHSC failed to regulate reimbursement rates for pharmacies and did not comply with statutory requirements for analyzing the economic impact on small businesses. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that HHSC was not obligated to set reimbursement rates under the MMC model and had substantially complied with the relevant government code regarding small business impact. The court also determined that American Pharmacies lacked a justiciable interest as their economic losses stemmed from legislative changes rather than the challenged rules.

Medicaid Managed CarePharmacy BenefitsReimbursement RatesAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentPlea to the JurisdictionUltra ViresStatutory ConstructionSmall Business ImpactTexas Court of Appeals
References
37
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
Case No. 03-94-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1995

Charlie Franks and Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company v. Sematech, Inc., F/D/B/A Semi Conductor Manufacturing Technology Initiative And Burle Industries, Inc.

This case from the Texas Court of Appeals addresses an injured employee's third-party liability claim and an insurance carrier's derivative subrogation rights under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Charlie Franks was injured, and the workers' compensation carrier, Industrial Indemnity Insurance Company, paid benefits and subsequently filed a subrogation lawsuit. Franks intervened with his own negligence claim, but his intervention was dismissed due to the two-year statute of limitations. Consequently, the trial court granted summary judgment against Industrial Indemnity, ruling its derivative subrogation claim moot as Franks's underlying rights could not be established. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, emphasizing that Industrial Indemnity's initial suit did not assert Franks's full third-party liability cause of action for his joint benefit.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationStatute of LimitationsThird-Party LiabilitySummary JudgmentPlea in InterventionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier RightsDerivative Claim
References
17
Case No. W2014-00032-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2014

Ricardo Torres v. Precision Industries, P.I., d/b/a Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick and Vicki Hedrick

Ricardo Torres, an undocumented worker, appealed the Hardeman County Circuit Court's grant of summary judgment in his retaliatory discharge claim against Precision Industries, Terry Hedrick, and Vicki Hedrick. Torres alleged he was terminated after filing a workers' compensation claim for a back injury sustained on the job. The trial court had ruled that an unauthorized alien lacked standing to bring such a claim as they were incapable of legal employment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that undocumented employees do have standing to pursue retaliatory discharge claims in Tennessee, as the Workers' Compensation Act broadly defines 'employee' to include those lawfully or unlawfully employed. The court reasoned that retaliatory discharge actions protect employees' rights to file workers' compensation claims and preventing such claims by unauthorized aliens would create an incentive for employers to hire illegal workers and deny them benefits without consequence. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeUndocumented WorkerImmigration StatusSummary Judgment ReversalEmployee StandingEmployment LawTennessee Appellate CourtPublic Policy ExceptionEmployer Retaliation
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enderlin v. Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc.

Plaintiff, George D. Enderlin, an employee of Salhen Enterprises, Inc., sustained a back injury while working on an asbestos removal project at the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, owned by Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E) and contracted by Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc. He twisted his back when a power screw gun slipped while he was on a stepladder, prompting him to grab a pipe to steady himself, though he did not fall. Enderlin and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241, which was initially denied summary judgment by the Supreme Court for the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding insufficient evidence that RG&E or Hebert supervised the work for Labor Law § 200 liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (e) regarding stepladder security was not the proximate cause of the accident, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Construction accidentLabor LawWorkplace safetySummary judgmentProximate causeStepladderAsbestos removalPersonal injuryAppellate reviewMonroe County
References
13
Case No. 03-15-00348-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Enright v. Asclepius Panacea, LLC Asclepius Panacea GP, LLC Daily Pharmacy, LLC Daily Pharmacy GP, LLC And Toth Enterprises II, P .A. D/B/A Victory Medical Center

Todd Enright appealed a district court's denial of his special appearance in a case brought by Asclepius Panacea, LLC et al. (VMC). The dispute originated from VMC's equity purchase of Texas pharmacies from QVL. Enright, acting for QVL, allegedly made fraudulent misrepresentations during negotiations concerning drug inventory and handling of insurance receipts. Post-acquisition, Enright reportedly controlled QVL's finances, directing payments and wrongfully withholding VMC's funds. VMC's claims against Enright include common law fraud, Texas Securities Act violations, tortious interference, conversion, money had and received, and a request for an accounting, asserting his actions establish sufficient minimum contacts with Texas for personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionFraudTexas Securities ActTortious InterferenceConversionEquitable AccountingSpecial AppearanceMinimum ContactsFiduciary Shield DoctrineAppellate Procedure
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kielwein v. Gulf Nuclear, Inc.

Kenneth Kielwein and his wife, Laurie Kielwein, appealed a summary judgment in their lawsuit against Gulf Nuclear, Inc. for negligence, gross negligence, and intentional assault and battery following Kenneth's exposure to radioactive Americium-241 at Gulf Nuclear's plant. The trial court initially struck the Kielweins' negligence pleadings, citing Gulf Nuclear's workers' compensation policy and Kenneth's notice of it, and found no genuine issue of fact regarding Gulf Nuclear's intent to injure. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment. It affirmed that pre-injury notice of workers' compensation coverage was sufficient to bar negligence claims, even without the employer formally notifying the Industrial Accident Board. However, the court found that an affidavit from Dr. Carl J. Johnson, stating Gulf Nuclear was 'substantially certain' to cause injury, raised a material fact issue regarding an intentional tort, which is not barred by workers' compensation. The case was remanded for a trial on the merits.

Workers' CompensationIntentional TortSummary JudgmentRadioactive ContaminationAmericium-241NegligenceGross NegligenceOccupational HazardIndustrial Accident BoardTexas Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emhart Industries, Inc. v. Duracell International Inc.

This breach of contract case involves the sale of the Mallory Components Group by Duracell International Inc. to Emhart Industries, Inc. Several transferred facilities were contaminated with toxic substances (PCBs and TCE), leading to two consolidated lawsuits: Emhart v. Duracell and Dart, and Duracell v. Emhart. The trial was bifurcated into liability and damages phases. The Court ruled that Duracell and Dart are liable to Emhart for clean-up costs of the facilities and equipment, consequential damages arising from the necessary clean-up time, costs incurred in enforcing the contract, and a portion of third-party action costs. Additionally, Duracell was found liable to Emhart for CERCLA response costs. The Court also determined that Emhart's temporary plant shutdown was a reasonable response to perceived legal and health risks, but its subsequent decision to permanently close the plant and abandon equipment, while economically rational for Emhart, was outside the scope of Duracell's indemnity obligation.

Breach of ContractEnvironmental LawToxic SubstancesPCBsTCECorporate SaleIndemnity AgreementCERCLATSCAClean-up Costs
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cardinal Health 414, Inc. v. Adams

This case addresses allegations of email snooping within the nuclear pharmacy industry, where plaintiff Cardinal Health 414, Inc. sued former employees Daniel Adams and Allen B. Townsend along with Music City Nuclear Pharmacy. Adams allegedly accessed a former co-worker's email account after leaving Cardinal and shared confidential information, including customer data and pricing, with Townsend, who subsequently started a competing business. Cardinal sought damages for business losses, claiming violations of federal and Tennessee statutes concerning electronic communications and trade secrets. The court rendered decisions on several cross-motions for summary judgment, granting some claims and denying others, while also addressing affirmative defenses. Ultimately, the court found Adams liable for an SCA violation and granted summary judgment against defendants on wiretap and civil conspiracy claims, but allowed TPCCA and TUTSA claims to proceed to trial.

E-mail snoopingTrade secrets misappropriationComputer fraudElectronic communications privacyWiretap ActSummary judgmentAffirmative defensesLachesIllegalityAntitrust
References
34
Case No. 16-CA-12241
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1985

Dunn v. Pilgrim Industries, Inc.

The Regional Director of Region Sixteen of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Michael Dunn, filed a verified petition for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act against Pilgrim Industries, Inc. The petition alleged that Pilgrim Industries engaged in unfair labor practices by refusing to bargain with the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 540, following its acquisition of Pluss-Tex Poultry Company, and by unilaterally implementing changes to employee benefits and work shifts. The court found reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices had occurred. However, it declined to issue a mandatory bargaining order, citing insufficient evidence of irreparable harm to the Union that could not be remedied by a final Board order. The court instead granted a prohibitory injunction, restraining Pilgrim Industries from actions intended to erode employee support or membership in the Union and from unlawfully dissipating Union strength, while explicitly allowing the previously instituted pay increase, pension plan, and second work shift to remain. The ultimate resolution of successor employer status and bargaining duty was deferred to the NLRB.

National Labor Relations ActSection 10(j) InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeSuccessor EmployerDuty to BargainUnilateral ChangesCollective BargainingLabor DisputeTemporary InjunctionProhibitory Injunction
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 4,626 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