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

United States ex rel. Wall v. Circle C Construction, LLC

Relator Brian Wall and the United States (Plaintiffs) sued Circle C Construction, LLC (Defendant) for violations of the False Claims Act (FCA) related to federal contracts at Fort Campbell. Circle C knowingly submitted false payroll certifications, failing to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act's prevailing wage requirements for its electrical subcontractor, Phase Tech. After two appeals to the Sixth Circuit, the case was remanded to the District Court for recalculation of damages. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin H. Sharp, determined that Circle C's fraud tainted $259,298.18 of government payments for electrical work performed by Phase Tech on Kentucky-based buildings. Applying treble damages under the FCA and offsetting a settlement payment, the Court awarded Plaintiffs $762,894.54 in total damages.

False Claims ActDavis-Bacon ActGovernment Contract FraudWage ViolationsDamages RecalculationFederal Acquisition RegulationsSubcontractor LiabilityPrevailing WageTreble DamagesQui Tam
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter

This memorandum opinion on remand addresses a product liability lawsuit filed by Janace M. Carter against BIC Pen Corp. after her daughter, Brittany, suffered severe burns from a BIC cigarette lighter. Initially, a jury found both design and manufacturing defects, leading to an award of actual and exemplary damages. However, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the design defect claim was preempted by federal law and remanded the case for consideration of the manufacturing defect claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding actual damages, concluding that the manufacturing defect claim was not preempted, the spoliation instruction was properly given, and there was sufficient evidence to support the manufacturing defect and causation findings. Conversely, the court reversed and rendered the portion of the judgment awarding exemplary damages, finding insufficient evidence to establish malice on the part of BIC Pen Corp. in the manufacturing process.

Product LiabilityManufacturing DefectFederal PreemptionSpoliation InstructionExemplary DamagesActual DamagesCigarette LighterChild SafetyConsumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)Appellate Review
References
32
Case No. No. 2-97-046-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Steak & Ale of Texas, Inc. v. Borneman

This is a dram shop case on remand from the supreme court, which had agreed that a previous jury charge was erroneous but directed a new trial instead of a rendered judgment. The current opinion addresses several points not previously considered. The court found that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the jury's liability finding against Bennigan's for serving an obviously intoxicated individual. However, the court sustained Bennigan's complaint regarding an erroneous jury instruction that misstated the law concerning the Dram Shop Act. Most significantly, the court concluded that exemplary or punitive damages are not recoverable under the Texas Dram Shop Act, as the Act is an exclusive remedy providing only for compensatory damages. Therefore, the trial court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial.

Dram Shop ActAlcoholic Beverage CodePunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesCompensatory DamagesJury InstructionsLegal SufficiencyNo-evidence ChallengeCausation StandardObvious Intoxication
References
45
Case No. 97-CV-836
Regular Panel Decision

Stott v. Revere Transducers, Inc.

Plaintiff Gary A. Stott sued Defendant Revere Transducers, Inc. for breach of an employment contract, seeking $64,902.50 in damages, including severance wages, unpaid commissions, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under New York Labor Law § 198(l)(a). The defendant removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. Plaintiff moved to remand the case back to New York State Supreme Court, Cayuga County, arguing the jurisdictional amount was not met. The court found that the defendant failed to prove by a reasonable probability that the plaintiff's claims exceeded $75,000, even after accounting for the defendant's alleged under-calculation of liquidated damages and attorney's fees. Therefore, the court granted the plaintiff's motion and remanded the case.

Employment Contract BreachMotion to RemandDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyLiquidated DamagesAttorney's FeesFederal Court JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionRemoval ActionLabor Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Srite v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

This opinion addresses an appeal from nine consolidated asbestos cases where a jury found liability but awarded no past damages to several plaintiffs. The court, HEDGES, Justice, reviewed the proper standard of appellate review for zero damages verdicts, distinguishing between objective and subjective symptoms of injury and adhering to the Pool v. Ford Motor Co. standard. The court upheld the jury's zero past damages awards for most plaintiffs, finding them not against the great weight of the evidence. However, it reversed the trial court's application of the statute of limitations to the Spikes family's claim, remanding it for further proceedings. Additionally, the court sustained the point of error regarding prejudgment interest calculation, ruling that under Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc., interest should accrue six months after the last day of asbestos exposure, rather than six months after the lawsuit filing date, and remanded the Burt and Friley cases for recalculation. The court also addressed, but did not rule on the merits of, an expert testimony admissibility challenge due to procedural errors by the plaintiffs.

Asbestos litigationzero damagesprejudgment interestappellate reviewcomparative negligencestrict liabilitylatent diseasestatute of limitationsexpert testimonymedical examination
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

May v. Apache Corp.

Plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit in a Texas state court, alleging state law claims related to property damage from the defendants' oil and gas operations. After later discovering contamination, they amended their complaint to include claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Texas Water Code. Subsequently, the defendants removed the case to a federal district court, citing the federal CERCLA claim. The district court, presided over by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos, ruled on the plaintiffs' motion to remand. The court denied the remand for the CERCLA claims due to exclusive federal jurisdiction but granted the remand for the state law claims, sending them back to the Nueces County state court. This partial remand was based on factors such as differing trial procedures (bench vs. jury) and the predominance of distinct state law issues.

CERCLATexas Water CodeRemoval JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionRemandState Law ClaimsFederal QuestionOil and Gas OperationsEnvironmental ContaminationProperty Damage
References
42
Case No. 4:04-ev-454
Regular Panel Decision

Del Carmen Esparza v. Jozwiak

An accident on September 20, 2004, involving a semi tractor-trailer and two other vehicles, resulted in multiple fatalities and injuries, including employees of Sta-Dri Company, Inc. Representatives of Manuel Esparza's estate and surviving passengers, Candelario and Javier Esparza, initiated a lawsuit against Miroslaw Janusz Jozwiak, KV Trucking, Inc., KV Express, Eagle Express Lines, Inc., and Sta-Dri Company, Inc., seeking exemplary damages for gross negligence. The case was removed to federal court by defendants, asserting fraudulent joinder of Sta-Dri to defeat diversity jurisdiction, prompting plaintiffs to file a motion to abstain and remand, arguing claims arose under Texas workers' compensation laws, thus barring federal removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1445(c). The court found that the plaintiffs' claims for gross negligence and exemplary damages, pursuant to § 408.001 of the Texas Labor Code, did indeed arise under the state's workers' compensation laws, making the case non-removable. Consequently, the court granted the motion, remanding the lawsuit to the 193rd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, but declined to award attorney's fees to the plaintiffs.

Workers' CompensationRemoval JurisdictionAbstentionRemandGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWrongful DeathDiversity JurisdictionImproper JoinderTexas Labor Code
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gibson v. Wyatt Cafeterias, Inc.

This case concerns Loretta Gibson's Motion to Remand her workplace injury lawsuit to state court, which was granted by District Judge Schell. Gibson sought damages for medical expenses, lost earning capacity, and pain and suffering based on state common law negligence claims against her employer, a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers Compensation Act. The employer had removed the suit to federal court, contending that the claim was preempted by ERISA due to its connection with an Employee Injury Benefit Plan. However, the court ruled that Gibson's claim for personal injury damages was independent of the ERISA plan and did not "relate to" it in a manner requiring preemption. Consequently, the federal court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and ordered the case remanded to the state court.

ERISA preemptionWorkers' Compensation Actnon-subscriber employerpersonal injurycommon law negligencemotion to remandsubject matter jurisdictionemployee benefits planstate law claimsfederal court
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyble v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiffs filed a suit in state court against DuPont, a diverse defendant, and C. Frank Riddick, a non-diverse defendant and plant manager. DuPont removed the case to federal court, arguing that Riddick was fraudulently joined to defeat diversity jurisdiction, and thus the federal court had subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court. The court analyzed whether a claim for exemplary damages against Riddick was precluded by Texas law, particularly given the Workers' Compensation Act. The court found that DuPont failed to prove fraudulent joinder, concluding that a cause of action for gross negligence and attendant exemplary damages could be maintained against an employee in their individual capacity under the relevant Texas Workers’ Compensation Act savings clause. Consequently, the court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand, dismissing the other motions as moot.

Motion to RemandFraudulent JoinderDiversity JurisdictionWorkers' Compensation ActExemplary DamagesGross NegligenceTexas LawSubject Matter JurisdictionState CourtFederal Court
References
15
Case No. 14-06-00651-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2009

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. P. Lance Morris

Texas Mutual Insurance Company (carrier) appealed a final judgment in favor of workers' compensation claimant P. Lance Morris. Morris sued Texas Mutual for bad faith and violations of the Texas Insurance Code after the company initially preauthorized his back surgery but then disputed the claim. Texas Mutual also counterclaimed for fraud. The jury found Texas Mutual engaged in unfair/deceptive acts and knowingly violated the Texas Insurance Code, awarding damages for mental anguish and loss of credit reputation, plus additional damages. On appeal, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of unfair practices and knowing violation, as well as mental anguish damages. However, the court found insufficient evidence for damages to credit reputation, reducing the actual and additional damages accordingly, and remanding the issue of attorney's fees and interest for recalculation. The court affirmed the remainder of the trial court's judgment.

Insurance Code ViolationUnfair Settlement PracticesReasonable InvestigationKnowing ViolationMental Anguish DamagesCredit Reputation DamagesBad Faith ClaimCausal ConnectionPre-existing ConditionDamages Recalculation
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 8,469 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