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. ADJ532181 (SFO 0438716) ADJ250509 (SFO 0242560) ADJ6545137
Regular
Nov 14, 2014

MICHAEL THOMAS, vs. SAFEWAY STORES, INC. Permissibly Self-Insured,

This case involved an applicant seeking treatment from a highly specialized surgeon, Dr. Matsen, located in Seattle, for a complex shoulder revision. The original decision denied authorization for Dr. Matsen, deeming Seattle outside a reasonable geographic area, and excluded a crucial report from the applicant's treating physician, Dr. Osborn. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, admitting Dr. Osborn's report, which strongly supported Dr. Matsen's expertise and the inadequacy of local Bay Area surgeons for this complex case. Based on the applicant's medical history and the availability of specialized treatment, the Board reversed the original decision, finding Dr. Matsen to be within a reasonable geographic area.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReasonable geographic areaTreating surgeonAdministrative Director Rule 9780Labor Code section 4600Orthopedic surgeonTotal shoulder replacementRevision surgeryMedical historyPhysician competency
References
1
Case No. ADJ1210556 (AGO 0018589)
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

EDWIN MILLER vs. KEEBLER COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for removal and granted reconsideration of the WCJ's prior decisions regarding medical mileage and penalties. The Board found the WCJ failed to properly consider statutory factors in determining a "reasonable geographic area" for the applicant's medical treatment. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's decisions and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision addressing all outstanding issues, including the definition of a reasonable geographic area for treatment.

WCABPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationMedical MileageReasonable Geographic AreaLabor Code Section 4600Administrative Director Rule 9780(h)WCJBoltonRamirez
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2001

Stephens v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Curtis Stephens, an at-will employee, sued Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) for wrongful discharge under section 451.001 of the labor code, alleging retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims. Stephens was terminated after accumulating 162 absences following a work-related injury, a decision upheld by DART's internal Trial Board. The trial court applied a substantial evidence standard, issued a take-nothing judgment against Stephens, and granted DART partial summary judgment on Stephens' claims for attorney's fees and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the partial summary judgment regarding attorney's fees and exemplary damages, holding that attorney's fees are not recoverable as 'reasonable damages' under section 451.002 and that exemplary damages cannot be assessed against DART, a political subdivision. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the remainder of the trial court's judgment on the wrongful discharge claim, concluding that the doctrines of election of remedies and res judicata did not bar Stephens' statutory claim and that the claim had not been properly heard. A supplemental opinion on DART's motion for rehearing reaffirmed the initial decision, clarifying the inapplicability of the *City of Odessa v. Barton* precedent.

Wrongful DischargeRetaliation ClaimWorkers' Compensation ClaimsElection of RemediesRes JudicataAttorney's FeesExemplary DamagesGovernmental ImmunityPolitical SubdivisionAt-Will Employment
References
25
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. 13-99-275-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2000

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd., D/B/A Columbia Bayview Psychiatric Center v. Rayburn, William H.

William H. Rayburn, a 58-year-old former director of maintenance, sued his employer, Bay Area Healthcare Group, for age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) following his termination. A jury found in favor of Rayburn, awarding back pay, compensatory damages, and exemplary damages. Bay Area appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for liability and damages, and also arguing for a new trial based on a change in law from Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n. The Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, but modified the back pay award, reducing it from $83,000 to $69,925.35. The court overruled Bay Area's remaining issues, including the request for a new trial based on Kolstad.

Age DiscriminationWrongful TerminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRABack PayCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesMitigation of DamagesEvidentiary SufficiencyPretext
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Psihoyos v. National Geographic Society

This case concerns a copyright infringement dispute brought by Louis Psihoyos against The National Geographic Society (NGS). Psihoyos alleged that NGS infringed copyrights in his photograph of a dinosaur fossil and an accompanying illustration by publishing similar works in its magazine. NGS moved for summary judgment, arguing the similarities were due to unprotectible elements like common subject matter, or covered by doctrines such as merger and scenes a faire. The court analyzed the substantial similarity of the photographs, illustrations, and overall layout, finding that protectible elements were not substantially similar. Ultimately, the court granted NGS's motion for summary judgment and denied Psihoyos's cross-motion.

Copyright InfringementPhotographyIllustrationSummary JudgmentSubstantial SimilarityMerger DoctrineScenes A FaireIntellectual PropertyArtistic WorksDinosaur Fossil
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Johnson

This case involves an appeal by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) of an adverse judgment in a suit brought by former employee Charles Johnson. Johnson alleged he was discharged from his bus driver position in violation of Tex. Lab.Code ANN. § 451.001 after filing a worker's compensation claim. DART had policies regarding extended absence from work and an unwritten policy to retain or reinstate employees who produced a full work release during the grievance process. Johnson was terminated after 623 days of absence and presented a full work release at a rescheduled Trial Board hearing, which subsequently denied his grievance because the release was not provided on the originally scheduled hearing date. The trial court found that Johnson was discriminated against. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no evidence to establish a necessary causal connection between Johnson's worker's compensation claim and his discharge, as the circumstantial evidence was equally consistent with the Trial Board's decision regarding the medical release policy.

Worker's Compensation ClaimWrongful TerminationCausal ConnectionCircumstantial EvidenceGrievance ProcedureMedical Release PolicyEmployer PolicyTrial Board DecisionAppealTexas Labor Code
References
5
Case No. 2025-30-0595
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Mitchell, Jr.,Clarence v. Knoxville Area Transit

Clarence Mitchell, Jr., a bus driver for Knoxville Area Transit (KAT), suffered work-related left shoulder, wrist, and back injuries. He sought additional temporary disability benefits, which KAT denied, citing his failure to follow their transitional work program. The Court found that KAT's new transitional work program was not properly posted as required by the union contract, and Mr. Mitchell was unaware of it. Furthermore, the Court determined that Mr. Mitchell's refusal of light-duty transitional work, approximately a month after shoulder surgery, while on pain medication, and with a restriction of "no use of injured arm," was reasonable. The Court concluded that Mr. Mitchell is likely to prevail on the merits and granted his request for benefits, ordering KAT to provide medical care and pay $35,669.59 in past temporary partial disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsTransitional Work ProgramEmployer PolicyEmployee RightsWork InjuryShoulder InjuryWrist InjuryBack InjuryMedical Restrictions
References
3
Case No. 78-3135
Regular Panel Decision

Central States Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Kraftco, Inc.

This case concerns a dispute over delinquent pension contributions owed by Kraftco, Inc., to the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund and Local Union 327, Teamsters. The central issue revolved around a "side letter" agreement between Kraftco and the Union president, made without full Union ratification, which sought to modify the terms of collective bargaining agreements regarding pension contributions. The District Court found this side letter agreement null and void, asserting it violated federal labor laws (LMRA and ERISA) and Illinois trust law by circumventing established contractual obligations and diminishing employee rights. The court ruled that Kraftco's reliance on the unauthorized side letter was not justifiable, denying an estoppel argument. Judgment was entered for the Fund and Union, requiring Kraftco to pay $246,395.00 in past due contributions.

Labor LawPension ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementERISALMRASide Letter AgreementTrust Fund EnforcementUnion RatificationContract ModificationDelinquent Contributions
References
37
Case No. NO. 02-12-00517-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) v. Agent Systems, Inc.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Agent Systems, Inc. The core dispute involved a contract for validating fareboxes, which DART and the T eventually ceased work on, leading Agent Systems to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and later sue for damages under a termination for convenience clause. The appellate court reviewed issues regarding the standard of review, jury charge, sufficiency of evidence, and the award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits, finding sufficient evidence that DART and the T breached the contract by improperly terminating it for default instead of for convenience. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, adjusting the rate from six to five percent and requiring the trial court to redetermine the accrual date.

Breach of ContractGovernment ContractTermination for ConvenienceTermination for DefaultJury Verdict ReviewSufficiency of EvidencePrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestContractual DisputeAdministrative Remedies
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 5,995 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