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

Shepherd v. Goodwill Industries of South Texas, Inc.

Plaintiff Sheree Shepherd, a Black and legally blind individual, sued Defendant Goodwill Industries of South Texas Inc. for alleged discrimination based on race and disability, and for retaliation. The claims stemmed from Goodwill's decision not to hire Shepherd for a Junior Editor position, following her prior EEOC charge against former supervisors at South Texas Lighthouse for the Blind (STLB). Goodwill argued legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not hiring her, including a slow skills assessment and potential security clearance issues at the military base where the job was located. The Court denied Goodwill's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Goodwill's reasons were a pretext for discrimination and whether a former supervisor, Ms. Johnson, influenced the hiring decision with retaliatory motives under the 'cat's paw' theory.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActADAEmployment LawSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationHiring Discrimination
References
23
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 2019-02-0551
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2021

Maples, David ( McClain, Codi) v. Professional Personnel Services

This case involves Codi McClain, son of deceased employee David Maples, seeking death benefits from Professional Personnel Services and American Zurich. Mr. Maples died on December 16, 2017, after a work-related fall. Although funeral expenses were voluntarily paid by Professional Personnel, the claim for death benefits was later denied by American Zurich. McClain filed a Petition for Benefit Determination on November 18, 2019, almost two years after Mr. Maples's death. Professional Personnel Services filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that McClain failed to file within the one-year statute of limitations. The Court determined that McClain's reason for the late filing (difficulty hiring an attorney) was insufficient to toll the statute. Consequently, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing McClain's claim with prejudice.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDeath BenefitsTimeliness of FilingWorkers' Compensation ClaimMotion to DismissLegal ProcedureAppellate RightsCourt of Workers’ Compensation ClaimsPrejudice Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Professional Career Center, Inc.

The Professional Career Center, Inc., offering real estate education, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's assessment for additional unemployment insurance contributions. The assessment stemmed from a determination that the Center's teachers were employees, not independent contractors. Despite a consulting agreement, the court found substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. This was based on the Center's control over hiring, payment, quality, student recruitment, tuition, scheduling, and curriculum adherence. The court concluded that these factors supported the finding, affirming the decision against Professional Career Center, Inc.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorProfessional EducationReal Estate LicensingLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContributionsAudit
References
3
Case No. 03-14-00552-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2015

Raghunath Dass, P.E. v. Texas Board of Professional Engineers

Appellant Raghunath Dass, PE, appeals sanctions imposed by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers (TBPE) for alleged violations of the Texas Engineering Practices Act. Dass asserts the TBPE lacked jurisdiction over the case facts and authority to amend its final order while under judicial review. He argues that the TBPE's amended final order is void because the agency modified a decision during judicial review. Additionally, Dass contends the TBPE lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to regulate construction material testing (CMT), which he argues is not "professional engineering." He also challenges the TBPE's authority to restrict competitive bidding for CMT and asserts that the 2005/2009 CME Policy Advisory Opinion, relied upon by the Board, is an invalid and unenforceable standard not promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act. Finally, Dass argues that even if the testing was Construction Materials Engineering (CME), Naismith Engineering, not Dass, was the supervising engineer for the project.

Engineering RegulationProfessional ConductLicensing SanctionsAdministrative OverreachStatutory InterpretationPublic Works ProjectsRegulatory ComplianceJudicial OversightAgency Rules ValidityProfessional Responsibility
References
16
Case No. E2024-01171-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2025

GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF TENNEVA AREA, INC. v. MICHAEL HUTTON

This case concerns an appeal from the Chancery Court for Sullivan County, where Goodwill Industries of Tenneva Area, Inc., and its CEO, Morris Baker (Appellees), obtained an injunction and temporary restraining order against former employee Michael Hutton (Appellant) under the Tennessee Violence in the Workplace Act (TVWA). The appellees alleged Hutton engaged in unlawful violence, specifically stalking, through persistent Facebook posts after his termination and a ban from Goodwill premises. The Trial Court granted the injunction, found Hutton in contempt for violating the temporary restraining order, and awarded attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court's judgment, finding that the majority of Hutton's Facebook posts could not reasonably be construed as 'at the workplace' as required by the TVWA. The Court concluded that only one instance of harassment occurred at the workplace, which was insufficient to establish the 'pattern of conduct' necessary for stalking under the statute. Consequently, the findings of contempt and the awards of attorney's fees were also reversed.

Workplace Violence ActInjunctionStalkingSocial Media HarassmentContempt of CourtAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFirst AmendmentEmotional Distress
References
14
Case No. M2021-01141-SC-R3-BP
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2022

Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee v. Candes Vonniest Prewitt

This case involves an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee concerning attorney Candes Vonniest Prewitt's professional misconduct. A hearing panel found Prewitt violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including failures in expert disclosures, conflicts of interest due to a romantic relationship with her client, and improper withdrawal from representation. The Chancery Court affirmed these findings and the imposed sanctions, which included a thirty-day suspension, additional ethics education, and a practice monitor. The Supreme Court of Tennessee subsequently affirmed the decisions of both the hearing panel and the trial court, upholding the findings of misconduct and the disciplinary actions.

Attorney DisciplineProfessional MisconductConflict of InterestRules of Professional ConductAttorney CompetenceDiligenceWithdrawal from RepresentationExpert DisclosureLegal EthicsSanctions
References
33
Case No. 11-04-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2005

Fernando Morales v. Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing

Fernando Morales, a temporary employee, sued Martin Resources, Inc., Martin Operating Partnership, L.P., and Select Professional Staffing for negligence after sustaining a hand injury at Martin Resources' Odessa facility. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, citing the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA). On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals reviewed whether the defendants had sufficiently proven their workers' compensation insurance coverage, a necessary condition for the exclusive remedy provision to apply. The court found that neither Select Professional Staffing nor Martin Resources, Inc. provided adequate evidence of explicit workers' compensation coverage for themselves. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing the burden of proof for establishing affirmative defenses like the exclusive remedy provision.

Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedySummary Judgment ReversalTemporary EmployeesStaff LeasingNegligence ClaimsAppellate Court DecisionInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployer LiabilityTexas Labor Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. CA 12-01143
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

PROFESSIONAL, CLERICAL, TECHNICAL, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, concerning an arbitration award. The petitioner, Professional, Clerical, Technical, Employees Association, sought to vacate an arbitration award, which the Supreme Court, Erie County, initially granted. The respondent, Board of Education for Buffalo City School District, appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying the petition to vacate and granting the cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award. The court concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding employee qualifications for new positions was neither irrational nor an exceeding of authority. The arbitrator's decision upheld the supervisor's discretion in assessing qualifications beyond minimum requirements for Assistant Management Analyst positions.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewLabor LawAppellate DivisionSupervisor DiscretionEmployee QualificationsContract InterpretationNew York LawSchool District
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 676 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