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

Clayton v. Pizza Hut, Inc.

Angela Clayton, a waitress at Pizza Hut, was severely burned during her employment. She filed a tort action against her employer, Pizza Hut, and a coffee equipment distributor, alleging negligence. Pizza Hut argued the Worker's Compensation Act provided the sole remedy. The trial court denied Pizza Hut's motion for summary judgment, believing a 1977 amendment limited the Act's exclusivity to injuries causing disablement or death. The Chief Justice reversed the trial court's order, ruling that the Worker's Compensation Act's exclusive remedy provision applies even if the injury causes disfigurement but not disablement, as long as the worker is entitled to temporary disability benefits or medical expenses.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityDisfigurement InjuryTort ActionInterlocutory AppealEmployer LiabilityTennessee LawStatutory InterpretationNegligence ClaimSummary JudgmentOccupational Injury
References
6
Case No. ANA 0347858
Regular
Sep 12, 2008

KEYIN L. ROSS vs. SAN DIEGO CHARGERS and LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION (CIGA), SAN DIEGO CHARGERS, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TIG

The WCA's decision is affirmed for two reasons: Kansas City is wrong in claiming that San Diego was self-insured, and CIGA's statutes preclude Kansas City from recovering from San Diego.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGALegion Insurance CompanyKansas City ChiefsSan Diego Chargerscontributioninsolvent insurercovered claimsInsurance Code section 1063.1(c)(5)deductible reimbursement
References
5
Case No. 05-15-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2014

Abbie Gail Byrd v. JNH Food, LLC D/B/A Pizza Hut

This document is a Notice of Appeal filed by Plaintiff Abbie Gail Byrd to the Fifth District Court of Appeals. Byrd seeks to appeal a summary judgment ruling rendered by the trial court in favor of Defendant JNH Food, LLC d/b/a Pizza Hut, signed on November 12, 2014, in Cause No. DC-1407493. The appeal focuses on the trial court's determination regarding whether the plaintiff's injury occurred within the scope and course of her employment. This legal question is crucial as its resolution will determine if Byrd has a valid cause of action against JNH Food, LLC or if her claim is barred by Worker's Compensation. The case was also severed from a prior Cause No. DC-14-07439 on February 21, 2015.

AppealSummary JudgmentEmployment LawWorker's CompensationScope of EmploymentJudicial ReviewTrial Court RulingLegal ProcedureDallas CountyTexas Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2001

Yerry v. Pizza Hut of Southeast Kansas

Toby Yerry sued his former employer, Pizza Hut of Southeast Kansas, Inc., and shift manager Charles White, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII and New York Executive Law, along with state common law claims. Yerry claimed White forced him to spank himself in a locked restroom. The court found that while the incident was severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment, Pizza Hut was not liable as it took prompt corrective action by suspending White immediately. Furthermore, Yerry's retaliation claim failed due to a lack of tangible adverse employment action, and White could not be held liable under New York Executive Law for aiding and abetting since no discrimination by the employer was found. Consequently, all federal and state law causes of action against Pizza Hut and White were dismissed, with remaining state law claims dismissed without prejudice.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Executive LawEmployer LiabilityQuid Pro Quo HarassmentAssault and BatteryFalse Imprisonment
References
26
Case No. ADJ4357759 (SDO 0267149) ADJ4317475 (SDO 0359844)
Regular
Sep 09, 2010

SUSAN KUJAWA vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, NOVATO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied San Diego Unified School District's petition for reconsideration regarding apportionment of temporary disability liability. The Board found that jurisdiction was not barred by the five-year statute of limitations, as the issue of temporary disability remained outstanding until settlement approval. The Board upheld its prior decision to apportion 94% of temporary disability to San Diego Unified and 6% to Novato Unified, based on the Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion and party stipulations. San Diego Unified's arguments regarding jurisdiction and reliance on the AME's medical opinion were found to be without merit.

ApportionmentTemporary DisabilityPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Stipulations and AwardsJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsContributionMedical OpinionPermanent Disability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2001

Smith v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc.

An actor sustained personal injuries while filming a television commercial, leading to an action against BBD&O, Pizza Hut, and Headquarters. The claims against BBD&O and Pizza Hut were dismissed via summary judgment, as Headquarters, an independent contractor, was deemed responsible for the production, personnel, and equipment. The court granted Headquarters' motion to amend its answer, allowing it to assert a workers' compensation defense based on the potential for Headquarters being a special employer. However, Headquarters' request for summary judgment based on this defense was denied, as a factual issue remained regarding the plaintiff's employment status. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed both the earlier order and the judgment.

Personal InjuryTelevision ProductionActor InjuryIndependent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employment DoctrineAppellate DivisionEmployer Immunity
References
7
Case No. SDO 0249452
Regular
May 12, 2008

GAIL GODFREY vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE ENTERPRISE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by BROADSPIRE for SUPERIOR PACIFIC CASUALTY COMPANY

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the County of San Diego was the applicant's special employer, making them jointly and severally liable for her injury. This determination was made despite a contract stating the applicant was not a County employee, as the Board found sufficient evidence of San Diego's control over her work. Consequently, the County is considered "other insurance available" to the applicant, meaning CIGA is not liable for her benefits.

CIGAcovered claimspecial employergeneral employerlabor brokerageindustrial injuryinsolvent insurerother insurancejoint and several liabilitycontractual exclusion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

Chief Judge Cooke dissents from the majority's decision, which reversed an order finding Manhattan Pizza Hut, Inc.'s anti-nepotism rule discriminatory. The rule prohibits employees from supervising relatives, including spouses, thereby discriminating against married persons based solely on their marital status. Cooke argues that this policy violates Executive Law Section 296, which forbids employment discrimination based on marital status, as it targets married individuals while overlooking other close personal relationships. He emphasizes that this discrimination can discourage marriage or encourage divorce and impede employment opportunities, thus undermining the protected status of marriage. Cooke concludes that the rule is not a bona fide occupational qualification and votes to affirm the Appellate Division's order, which presumably ruled against Pizza Hut.

Anti-nepotism policyEmployment discriminationMarital status discriminationExecutive Law Section 296Bona fide occupational qualificationAppellate reviewDissenting opinionEmployee rightsWorkplace conflictFamily status
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

San Antonio Building & Construction Trades Council v. City of San Antonio

The San Antonio Building and Construction Trades Council (SABTC) and individual representatives challenged the City of San Antonio regarding prevailing wage requirements for construction workers on a convention center hotel project. SABTC argued that Chapter 2258 of the Texas Government Code mandated prevailing wages, but the trial court denied this, finding that despite being a 'public work', no 'public funds' were used for its construction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It determined that public funds pledged as security for revenue bonds, or the bonds themselves, did not constitute public funds used for the 'construction' of the project under the relevant statute.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic WorksPublic FundsAssociational StandingLabor LawDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Government CodeRevenue BondsHotel Occupancy TaxStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. 15-25-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2025

State of Texas v. City of San Antonio, Ron Niremberg, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of San Antonio, and Erik Walsh, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio

The State sued the City of San Antonio, its Mayor, and its City Manager for ultra vires conduct under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, seeking declarations that the City’s plan to spend taxpayer dollars on travel for out-of-state abortions violates the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clause. The district court granted the City’s plea to the jurisdiction, asserting the claim was not ripe, and dismissed the suit. The State argues that the City’s plan to fund out-of-state abortion travel violates the Gift Clause by lacking public benefit, failing to serve a public purpose, and not retaining public control over funds. The State contends that delaying judicial review would cause great hardship due to the imminent risk of constitutional injury from the disbursement of funds, which the City intended to expedite before SB 33's effective date or by the end of its fiscal year. The State asserts the case is ripe for review because the illegal activity is "likely to occur," and despite SB 33 prohibiting such funding, the City's belief it can disburse funds by September 30, 2025, keeps the controversy live.

Public Funds MisuseAbortion Travel FundingTexas Gift ClauseRipeness DoctrineUltra Vires ActConstitutional ChallengeState-City ConflictReproductive Rights PolicyTaxpayer MoneyInjunctive Relief
References
89
Showing 1-10 of 1,005 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