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

Garry L. Rollins and Carla D. Rollins v. Texas College and MPF Investments, LLC D/B/A A-1 Rent All

Garry Rollins, a maintenance technician at Texas College, was injured in October 2013 after falling from a scissor lift. He and Carla Rollins (the Rollinses) sued Texas College, a nonsubscriber to worker's compensation, for negligence, and MPF Investments, LLC d/b/a "A-1 Rent All" (from whom one of the lifts was rented) for negligence and negligent entrustment. The trial court granted summary judgments for Texas College and MPF, striking a letter from Dr. Barnett (Garry's physician) as inadmissible hearsay. On appeal, the Rollinses challenged the striking of evidence and the granting of summary judgments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the doctor's letter inadmissible and that the Rollinses provided no evidence of causation for Texas College or that Garry fell from MPF's lift. The motion to reopen evidence was also denied because the evidence was not new or diligently sought.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePersonal InjuryMedical EvidenceHearsayCausationExpert TestimonyPreexisting ConditionAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reed v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.

Patricia K. Reed appealed the dismissal of her claims for retaliatory discharge and breach of employment contract against Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the retaliatory discharge claim, ruling that Reed failed to establish a causal link between her workers' compensation claim and her termination, despite the one-year statute of limitations not having run. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the breach of employment contract claim, concluding that the "FamPact" document constituted a binding employment agreement. The court also affirmed the dismissal of Reed's statutory claim under the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law, finding no private right of action for negligent case management. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding the breach of contract claim.

Retaliatory DischargeBreach of Employment ContractWorkers' Compensation ClaimEmployment LawAt-Will EmploymentEmployee HandbookFamPactStatute of LimitationsCausation in EmploymentRelease of Liability
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2000

Claim of Spurck v. Avis Rent-A-Car

Claimant, concurrently employed by Avis Rent-A-Car and First Call, suffered a work-related compensable injury during his employment with Avis in February 1995. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case and determined claimant's average weekly wage based on wages from both concurrent employments. Avis sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) for awards made when claimant’s wages at a subsequent employer (Autohaus South Volkswagen, Inc.) exceeded his Avis wages or pre-injury rate. Both the WCLJ and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied reimbursement, a determination that Avis and its carrier appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that Avis's liability was not greater under WCL § 14 (6) than it would have been under prior law, which is the relevant inquiry for Special Fund reimbursement.

Workers CompensationSpecial Disability FundConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageReimbursementEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewReduced EarningsNew York Workers Compensation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Booker v. Budget Rent-A-Car Systems

Plaintiff Anthony Booker, a black employee of Budget Rent-A-Car in Nashville, alleges race discrimination and racial harassment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, along with retaliation. He claims General Manager Guy Grundman subjected him to severe verbal abuse, racial slurs, and disproportionately harsh treatment, leading to a demotion in January 1993. Booker further alleges he was denied a promotion in April 1993 and retaliated against with a negative performance evaluation and denial of an Airport Manager position after filing an EEOC charge. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. Booker's claims of racial harassment and discrimination regarding his demotion may proceed, but his failure to promote, retaliation, and wage discrimination claims were dismissed.

Racial HarassmentRace DiscriminationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Hostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentDemotionEmployment LawSupervisor LiabilityDisparate Treatment
References
49
Case No. 2018-08-1394
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2019

Johnson, Frederick v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car

Frederick Johnson, a service technician, sustained injuries when a co-worker accidentally struck him with a van at Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Enterprise denied his claim, asserting his injuries resulted from horseplay and willful misconduct, which the employer prohibited. However, the Court found insufficient evidence to support the horseplay defense, concluding instead that the incident stemmed from a miscommunication and the co-worker's improper driving. The Court ruled that Mr. Johnson is likely to prevail on the merits, granting him medical and temporary total disability benefits. Enterprise was ordered to cover incurred medical expenses, provide a panel of physicians, and pay $885.95 in temporary total disability.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingHorseplay DefenseWillful MisconductMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCredibility AssessmentMiscommunicationEmployee InjuryEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travelers Insurance Co. v. Medi-Rents, Inc.

The Travelers Insurance Company appealed a judgment awarding Medi-Rents, Inc. damages and attorney's fees in a dispute arising from the rental of a medical device for a workers' compensation claimant. Travelers initially paid rent but stopped, leading to a lawsuit. The jury found that the parties had agreed to convert the rental to a purchase agreement and that Travelers owed Medi-Rents $445.50, plus $3,000 in attorney's fees. Travelers challenged the plaintiff's claim, the award of attorney's fees, and their amount. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the claim valid under contract law and the attorney's fees justified, as Travelers failed to make a timely and unconditional tender of the just amount owing.

Workers' CompensationRental AgreementPurchase AgreementAttorney's FeesContract DisputeAppealDamagesThird-Party BeneficiaryTexas LawStipulation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schlesinger v. Levine

The plaintiff sought to invalidate a lease and recover rent and security, alleging mutual mistake or defendant's fraud concerning zoning regulations. The plaintiff intended to use the premises for "iron work," but the property, formerly business-zoned, had become residential, though a prior nonconforming use existed. The lease stipulated the tenant's responsibility for obtaining a certificate of occupancy and complying with laws, explicitly stating no landlord representation regarding ironwork use. The court found the plaintiff was fully informed about the zoning issues, including legal representation during lease signing. Consequently, the claims of mistake and fraud were deemed untenable, leading to a judgment for the defendant, dismissal of the complaint, and an award of $375 to the landlord for three months' rent.

Zoning RegulationsNonconforming UseLease ValidityContract FraudMutual MistakeTenant ResponsibilityCertificate of OccupancyRent ArrearsProperty LawJudicial Dismissal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Enterprise Rent a Car Co. of Texas

Plaintiff Stephanie Jones sued Enterprise Rent a Car Company of Texas, Enterprise Leasing Company of Houston, and Enterprise Rent a Car Company, alleging wrongful termination, various RICO violations, sex discrimination, pregnancy discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Jones' RICO claims. The Court granted the motion, dismissing the RICO claims with prejudice. The Court held that Jones lacked standing under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) because her injury (wrongful termination for refusing to participate in fraudulent schemes) was not proximately caused by the alleged RICO predicate acts, but by her employer's decision to fire her. Other claims remain intact.

RICO ActMotion to DismissWrongful TerminationRacketeering ActivityPredicate ActsHobbs Act ExtortionWire FraudMail FraudFinancial Institution FraudEmployee Standing
References
25
Case No. 9 N.Y.3d 912
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2007

In the Matter of Allen v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car

This case involves a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the motion on August 13, 2007, and rendered its decision on September 18, 2007. The motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal was denied.

Workers' Compensation ClaimMotion for ReargumentLeave to AppealCourt of Appeals DecisionMotion DeniedRespondentAppellantWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Aaron Rents, Inc.

This case concerns an employment discrimination lawsuit under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) brought by Plaintiff Edwards against Defendant Aaron Rents, Inc. A jury found in favor of the Plaintiff, awarding back pay, compensatory, and punitive damages for gender discrimination. The Court subsequently considered multiple post-trial motions, including the Plaintiff's requests for attorney's fees and equitable relief, and the Defendant's motions for judgment as a matter of law, new trial, and remittitur. The Court denied most of the Defendant's motions but granted remittitur, reducing the jury's awards for compensatory and punitive damages to a statutory cap, and adjusting back pay and front pay calculations. Ultimately, the Plaintiff was awarded attorney's fees, as well as remitted amounts for compensatory damages, punitive damages, back pay, and front pay, along with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and court costs.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTCHRAAttorney FeesPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesBack PayFront PayRemittiturJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 209 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