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. Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc.

Appellant Joyce Martin sued Clinical Pathology Laboratories, Inc. (CPL) for wrongful termination, alleging she was fired for leaving work early to vote. The trial court dismissed her case, and Martin appealed. The appellate court first addressed Martin's standing to sue, concluding that despite filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, she retained standing as her claim revested in her upon the confirmation of her bankruptcy plan. On the merits, Martin argued for a new common-law exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, citing Texas public policy and the Texas Election Code. However, the appellate court declined to create such an exception, emphasizing the legislature's role in defining exceptions to the at-will doctrine and noting that Martin's pleadings did not definitively show a violation of the Election Code. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment of dismissal.

wrongful terminationemployment at willright to voteTexas Election Codepublic policy exceptionChapter 13 bankruptcystandingappellate reviewcase dismissalemployer retaliation
References
42
Case No. 08-19-00067-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2020

Clinical Pathology Laboratories Inc. v. Juan Polo

This case involves an appeal concerning the application of the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) in a wrongful discharge lawsuit. Clinical Pathology Laboratories (CPL) terminated employee Juan Polo after he suffered a work-related injury and filed a worker's compensation claim. Polo sued CPL for retaliatory discharge under Chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. CPL filed a motion to dismiss under the TCPA, arguing Polo's claims were based on its exercise of free speech and right of association regarding matters of public concern (health and safety related to its lab services). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of CPL's motion, concluding that Polo's lawsuit was based on CPL's conduct of termination, not specific communications, and that CPL failed to show the communications related to a matter of public concern as distinct from its private pecuniary interests.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeTexas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA)Free SpeechRight of AssociationPublic ConcernPrivate DisputeEmployment LawAppealEl Paso
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 1994

Johnson v. El Paso Pathology Group, P.A.

Plaintiff Deborah A. Johnson, a pathologist, sued El Paso Pathology Group, P.A. and El Paso Healthcare System, Ltd. d/b/a Sun Towers Hospital for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court found that Johnson's sex was a motivating factor in her termination, rejecting the defendants' arguments that her personality or refusal to transfer justified the action. The decision also established that the defendants were 'joint employers' under federal law, despite state law restrictions on physician employment. Johnson was awarded $454,401 in damages, including back pay and front pay, along with attorney's fees and costs.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIJoint Employer DoctrineWrongful TerminationBack Pay AwardFront Pay AwardAttorney's FeesJudicial DiscretionFifth Circuit Precedent
References
31
Case No. ADJ12427109
Regular
Apr 04, 2023

RICHARD ADAMS vs. MR. PLASTICS, INC., EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award finding an industrial injury to the applicant's right hand. The applicant claimed a fracture occurred while operating a machine, though medical records initially focused on a non-industrial injury from a ladder. Crucially, a Qualified Medical Examiner (QME) opined the fracture was consistent with the applicant's described work mechanism. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's reasoning which prioritized the QME's opinion and medical records documenting the fracture prior to termination, over the defendant's arguments regarding proof of injury and temporary disability.

Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilityMachine OperatorRight Hand InjuryScaphoid FractureAOE/COEContemporaneous Medical RecordsQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Dr. Roland
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Onley v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh

This workers' compensation case addresses the appropriate scheduled member for a compensable injury and the extent of disability. The employee suffered a severe comminuted fracture to the first metacarpal bone in his left hand and a laceration on June 8, 1988. An orthopedic surgeon assessed a 63% permanent partial disability to the left thumb, which could also translate to hand or arm impairment, noting the fracture extended slightly into the wrist joint. The trial court awarded 60% permanent partial disability to the left thumb. On appeal, the court determined the injury was more appropriately classified as a disability to the left hand due to the fracture's location at the base of the thumb extending into the hand. Consequently, the judgment was modified to award 50% permanent partial disability to the left hand, affirming the trial court in all other respects.

Workers' CompensationScheduled InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityLeft Hand InjuryThumb FractureMetacarpal BoneMedical TestimonyOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate ReviewTrial Court Modification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 1990

Claim of Johnson v. New York City Board of Education

This case involves an appeal from a decision and an amended decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board had ruled that the claimant sustained a consequential injury and subsequently restored the case to the trial calendar. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the claimant's physician's testimony, despite some lack of clarity, met the requirement of signifying a probability as to the cause of the injury and was supported by a rational basis. Specifically, the determination that the claimant’s left ankle fracture was a consequence of an earlier work-related ankle fracture, which left the ankle in a weakened condition, was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationAppealConsequential InjuryAnkle FractureMedical EvidencePhysician TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate AffirmationWork-Related InjuryMedical Causation
References
3
Case No. ADJ1220987 (SJO 0262634)
Regular
Nov 17, 2010

RICHARD GILLISPIE vs. PLASTECH, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund (SIBTF) appealed an award of benefits to an applicant with a pre-existing disability, arguing a subsequent industrial back injury did not cause pathology in the opposite leg as required by statute. The Appeals Board affirmed the award, finding that Labor Code section 4751 only requires the subsequent injury to "affect" the opposite member, not necessarily cause direct pathology. Evidence showed the applicant's low back injury caused verified radiculopathy and impaired leg function, meeting the statutory requirement. The Board found SIBTF's legal arguments unpersuasive and the WCJ's findings supported by substantial evidence.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundLabor Code section 4751industrial injurylow backradiculopathypermanent disabilityopposite and corresponding memberpathologyAMA GuidesDRE category III
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Storch v. Syracuse University

Plaintiffs Mark and Jenny Storch sued Syracuse University and Professor Douglas Biklen after their autistic daughter, Jenny, allegedly accused her father of sexual abuse through "facilitated communication." A Family Court had previously rejected this communication method as unreliable, leading to the withdrawal of abuse charges against Mark Storch. The state court action alleged fraud and violations of Education Law regarding speech-language pathology. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that Biklen's statements were opinions on an evolving, controversial theory, not fraudulent misrepresentations, and that facilitated communication does not fall under the practice of speech-language pathology as defined by law. Consequently, the plaintiffs' complaint was dismissed.

Facilitated CommunicationAutism CommunicationChild Abuse AllegationsSummary JudgmentFraud ClaimsEducation LawSpeech-Language PathologyScientific ControversyExpert TestimonyAcademic Liability
References
14
Case No. 2023-04-00747
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2023

Redmon, Wetonia v. Dr. Daniel Jefferson Barnes

Wetonis A. Redmon sought medical treatment and temporary disability benefits for a right-arm fracture that occurred at work. During an Expedited Hearing on August 1, 2023, the Court found that although the injury happened in the course and scope of her employment, Ms. Redmon failed to establish that it arose primarily from the conditions of her employment. Ms. Redmon tripped and fell while carrying a tray, sustaining a displaced comminuted fracture in her right arm, but could not identify a specific workplace hazard causing the fall. The Court determined the injury was idiopathic and lacked a peculiar or additional employment hazard. Consequently, the Court denied her request for medical and temporary disability benefits, as well as attorney's fees.

Idiopathic InjuryWorkplace FallRight Arm FractureTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Treatment DenialWorkers' Compensation ClaimsCourse and Scope of EmploymentEmployment HazardCausationExpedited Hearing
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Park v. City of New York

In a personal injury action arising from a construction site accident, the Supreme Court, New York County, initially reduced a jury's award for past pain and suffering from $1,500,000 to $600,000. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified by the Appellate Division. The appellate court further directed a new trial on future pain and suffering unless the plaintiff agreed to a reduction of the award from $800,000 to $400,000. The decision was based on a comparison to similar cases involving comminuted elbow/arm fractures, multiple surgeries, and permanent limitations, while noting the plaintiff's non-dominant wrist fracture added little value as it resolved without surgery.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentDamagesPain and SufferingJury Award ReductionAppellate ReviewFractureElbow InjuryWrist InjuryStipulation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 327 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