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

Timothy Garrett Lane and Choat Enterprises, Inc. v. Silverio Martinez, II and Diana Martinez, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Silverio Martinez, III

Silverio Martinez, II and Diana Martinez sued Timothy Garrett Lane and Choat Enterprises, Inc., for wrongful death and survival claims after their son, Silverio Martinez, III, died in an automobile accident caused by Lane's negligence. The jury awarded the Martinez couple substantial damages for pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses, including mental anguish and loss of companionship. Appellants challenged the factual sufficiency of the damages, alleging improper jury arguments and evidentiary error. The appellate court found the evidence factually insufficient for the non-pecuniary damages, noting the jury's uniform awards across different damage elements. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for a new trial on liability and damages, but affirmed the directed verdicts against gross negligence claims and Jimenez's claim.

wrongful deathsurvival claimsautomobile accidentnegligencefactual sufficiencydamagesmental anguishloss of companionshipjury awardsremittitur
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casale v. Unipunch, Inc.

This case concerns a plaintiff seeking recovery for emotional distress and pecuniary damages after witnessing the electrocution of a co-worker at a defendant's work site. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the emotional distress claim, while the defendant cross-appealed the denial of dismissing the pecuniary damages claim. The court reviewed New York's bystander recovery rules, emphasizing that recovery for emotional injury from witnessing harm to a third person is generally precluded. The court found that the plaintiff did not meet the 'zone of danger' exception from Bovsun v Sanperi because the injured party was not an immediate family member. Consequently, both the emotional distress and the associated pecuniary damages claims were dismissed, modifying the lower court's order.

Emotional DistressPecuniary DamagesBystander RecoveryZone of DangerNegligenceCo-worker InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate LawDuty of CareNew York Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williamson v. Petroleum Helicopters, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kay Williamson, John Richards, and Carol Richards filed a wrongful death suit under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) following a helicopter crash in the Gulf of Mexico that killed James Edward Williamson and John Paul Richards. The crash occurred during transport between offshore platforms. Defendants Petroleum Helicopters, Inc., Eurocopter S.A., and American Eurocopter Corporation moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) should apply, thereby precluding punitive and non-pecuniary damages. The Court found that admiralty jurisdiction existed, leading to the application of maritime law, specifically DOHSA, over OCSLA. Consequently, DOHSA's limitations on damages resulted in the granting of the defendants' motion and the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims for punitive and non-pecuniary damages.

Wrongful DeathOuter Continental Shelf Lands ActDeath on the High Seas ActAdmiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawSummary JudgmentPunitive DamagesNon-Pecuniary DamagesHelicopter CrashOffshore Platform Accident
References
17
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 1995

Sager v. Local 1199 Drug, Hospital & Health Care Employees Union

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment that dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against all defendants. This judgment also brought up for review an earlier order from the same court which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that even if the words alleged by the plaintiff could lead a reasonable person to believe the defendants were accusing the plaintiff of actual criminality, the plaintiff failed to plead or prove any compensable pecuniary damages directly caused by these words. Additionally, the court found the plaintiff's allegations of general impairment of reputation to be inadequate boilerplate. Consequently, the plaintiff could not proceed solely on a claim of emotional distress without demonstrating compensable pecuniary or reputation damages.

Summary JudgmentDismissal of ComplaintDefamationPecuniary DamagesReputation DamagesEmotional DistressAppellate ReviewAffirmanceConstitutional ProtectionLegal Opinion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Thrift Packing Co.

The United States filed a claim for $2,471.15 against a bankrupt estate, alleging liquidated damages due to the bankrupt's violations of the Walsh-Healey Act concerning overtime pay and child labor. The Referee denied the claim, classifying it as a penalty under the National Bankruptcy Act, which generally disallows penalties unless they represent a pecuniary loss. The Chief Judge affirmed the Referee's decision, concluding that the claimed amount was a penalty and not a compensation for actual pecuniary loss to the United States. The court noted that the real beneficiaries of such recovery would be the employees, who were time-barred from seeking these amounts themselves. Therefore, the claim, being a penalty without direct damage to the United States, was rightly refused.

Bankruptcy LawWalsh-Healey ActLiquidated DamagesPenaltyChild Labor ViolationsOvertime CompensationBankruptcy ClaimFederal LawStatutory InterpretationAffirmed Decision
References
12
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,063 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