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. Davidson County Circuit Court No. 97C-55, C.A. No. 01A01-9712-CV-00690
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1999

Mildred Johnson and Gary Johnson v. Charles T. Cantrell and Patricia Cantrell

Mildred and Gary Johnson appealed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Charles T. and Patricia Cantrell. The case originated from an incident where Mildred Johnson, an employee, suffered a mini-stroke following a confrontational interaction with the Cantrells, who were landlords concerned about property removal. The Johnsons sued, alleging assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and later attempted to assert a negligence claim on appeal. The trial court found the Cantrells' actions insufficient to establish assault or outrageous conduct for emotional distress. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that the threats were not of imminent harm and the conduct, while upsetting, did not meet the high standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Summary JudgmentAssaultIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligenceAppellate ReviewTort LawCivil ProcedureFactual DisputeImminent HarmOutrageous Conduct
References
24
Case No. 07-04-0061-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2005

American Protection Insurance Company v. Patricia Johnson

This case concerns an appeal by American Protection Insurance Company (American) challenging a judgment awarding workers' compensation benefits to Patricia A. Johnson (Johnson). Johnson claimed that carbon monoxide exposure during her employment caused cardiomyopathy, a claim disputed by American regarding causation. After initial denials by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission, Johnson filed for judicial review. American appealed the trial court's decision, arguing the unreliability of Johnson's expert witness testimony and the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error as the challenged evidence was cumulative or harmless.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCarbon Monoxide ExposureCardiomyopathy CausationExpert Witness ReliabilityHearsay EvidenceAppellate AffirmationJudicial ReviewMedical OpinionsTrial Court DiscretionEvidentiary Rulings
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Protection Insurance Company v. Patricia Johnson

Patricia A. Johnson, an appellee, was awarded workers' compensation benefits after claiming cardiomyopathy due to carbon monoxide exposure during employment with Highland Medical Center, whose insurer was American Protection Insurance Company (appellant). While a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission hearing officer and appeals panel found a compensable injury, they denied causation for cardiomyopathy. Johnson then sought judicial review. American challenged the reliability of Johnson's expert witness, Dr. Thomas Kurt, and the admission of hearsay about carbon monoxide testing. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error, as any potential errors were harmless due to cumulative evidence and other expert opinions corroborating the assumptions relied upon by Johnson's expert regarding chronic exposure and causation.

Workers' CompensationCardiomyopathyCarbon Monoxide ExposureExpert Witness TestimonyHearsay EvidenceMedical CausationAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance DisputeOccupational Disease
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc. v. Sanchez

Martha Sanchez, a material handler for Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc., suffered an on-the-job injury in 1987 and was subsequently placed on an 'indefinite medical layoff.' Despite assurances of recall, she was never reinstated. Sanchez filed suit in 1991, alleging wrongful termination under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (article 8307c) and later adding claims for fraud and breach of contract. The trial court's rulings led to an appeal, where the court of appeals reversed summary judgment on the 8307c claim and a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the fraud claim. The Texas Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment regarding the 8307c claim, remanding it for further proceedings due to a factual dispute over when Sanchez received unequivocal notice of termination. However, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' decision on the fraud claim, rendering judgment for Johnson & Johnson due to a lack of evidence of reliance on the part of Sanchez.

Wrongful terminationStatute of limitationsFraud claimWorkers' compensationMedical layoffUnequivocal noticeCause of action accrualSummary judgmentJudgment notwithstanding verdictReliance element
References
14
Case No. M2010-01924-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2012

James Johnson and wife, Elaine Johnson v. The Torrington Company

James Johnson, a heavy equipment operator, suffered severe injuries in a workplace accident involving a custom-made waste container at a Browning Ferris Industries (BFI) transfer station in Giles County. Johnson and his wife sued The Torrington Company, the owner of the container, and Wastequip Manufacturing Company, its fabricator, alleging negligence in design, manufacturing, inspection, and maintenance. Wastequip settled, and a first jury found BFI solely at fault. The trial court, acting as the thirteenth juror, granted a new trial. A second jury found Torrington 90% at fault and Johnson 10% at fault, awarding the plaintiffs $3.5 million, which was reduced to $2,925,000 after a remittitur for Mrs. Johnson's damages. Torrington appealed, challenging the vacating of the first verdict, the second jury's findings, the allocation of fault (specifically the exclusion of BFI due to workers' compensation immunity), and the amount of the verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict and the allocation of fault.

Workplace InjuryProduct LiabilityNegligenceComparative FaultWorkers' Compensation ImmunityJury VerdictNew TrialThirteenth Juror RuleDamages AwardLoss of Consortium
References
23
Case No. 02A01-9605-JV-00123
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 1997

Mary Helen Pearson Johnson v. Luther William Johnson

The case involves an appeal by Luther William Johnson from a trial court's dismissal of his motion to set aside a consent order of paternity and support. Johnson, previously declared the father of a child with Mary Helen Pearson Johnson, sought relief after paternity testing identified John Jones as the biological father, a fact later admitted by the mother. The appellate court found the trial court erred in applying res judicata and judicial estoppel, emphasizing the "overriding importance" of ensuring an individual conclusively established not to be a father is not legally declared one. The court highlighted the "extraordinary circumstances of extreme hardship" caused by the conflicting paternity orders and the mother's admission. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling, stressing the judicial system's role in preventing such contradictory legal statuses and protecting the child's welfare.

Paternity DisputeChild Support EnforcementConsent Order ChallengeFraudulent MisrepresentationDNA Paternity TestRes Judicata DoctrineJudicial EstoppelRule 60.02 ReliefAppellate Court DecisionJuvenile Court Jurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc.

Martha Sanchez sued Johnson & Johnson Medical, Inc., for wrongful discharge, breach of contract, and fraud after an on-the-job injury led to her not being recalled to work. The trial court granted summary judgment against her retaliatory discharge claim and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on a fraud claim where the jury had awarded damages. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, citing a factual dispute over Sanchez's termination date, which impacted the statute of limitations. Furthermore, the court reversed the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, upholding the jury's findings of fraud, lost wages, mental anguish, and exemplary damages, remanding the retaliatory discharge claim and rendering judgment for Sanchez on the fraud claim.

Wrongful DischargeBreach of ContractFraudSummary JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictWorkers' Compensation ActRetaliatory DischargeStatute of LimitationsLabor Management Relations ActFederal Preemption
References
48
Case No. 14-05-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2006

John Johnson and Sherilyn Johnson and One Beacon Insurance Inc v. Texas Genco L.P, Incorrectly Named as Reliant Energy Inc.

This appeal concerns the granting of a no-evidence summary judgment against the appellants, John and Sherilyn Johnson, in a premises liability case. John Johnson sustained injuries from a fall caused by a concealed hole on the defendant's, Texas Genco, L.P.'s, premises while working as an invitee. The Johnsons, along with One Beacon Insurance, Inc., argued that Texas Genco had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The appellate court found that the Johnsons provided sufficient summary judgment evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendant's constructive notice. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

premises liabilitysummary judgmentconstructive noticeinviteedangerous conditionnegligenceTexas lawfall injuryemployer liabilityappellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 & Village of Johnson City

This case addresses whether a 'no-layoff' clause in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Village of Johnson City and its firefighter union was subject to arbitration. The Village abolished six firefighter positions citing budgetary necessity, leading the Johnson City Professional Fire Fighters, Local 921 IAFF, to file a grievance and seek to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed lower court decisions that had compelled arbitration. The court held that the no-layoff clause was not arbitrable because it failed to explicitly, unambiguously, and comprehensively protect against job abolition due to budgetary reasons. The term 'layoff' was deemed ambiguous and undefined within the CBA, rendering the dispute non-arbitrable on public policy grounds, thereby granting the Village's application to stay arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Layoff ClausePublic PolicyBudgetary StringenciesJob SecurityMunicipal EmploymentContract InterpretationUnion GrievanceFirefighters
References
5
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24048 [3 Misc 3d 347]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Johnson v. Hudson Riv. Constr. Co., Inc.

This case addresses motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Hudson River Construction Co., Inc., Albany Asphalt & Aggregates Corp., and Robert C. Higley. The plaintiff, Carlynann V. Johnson, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Warren D. Johnson, sought damages for the death of Warren D. Johnson, who was crushed by a truck at a construction site. Defendants argued that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 limited their liability to reckless conduct, eliminating a duty of care. The court denied the motions, holding that defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of duty to Johnson as an employee at a construction site and misapplied VTL § 1103, which does not apply to construction workers. The court also found that the defendants failed to establish that Johnson was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Summary Judgment MotionNegligence ActionConstruction Site FatalityWorkplace Safety DutyVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate Cause DisputeThird-Party LiabilityWrongful Death ClaimEmployer ResponsibilityHighway Construction Accident
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 772 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