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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Mutual Insurance Co. v. Morris

P. Lance Morris, a workers' compensation claimant, sued Texas Mutual Insurance Company, alleging bad faith and violations of the Texas Insurance Code for failing to properly investigate and delaying benefits for his spinal injury sustained in 2000, which required surgery in 2003. The jury found Texas Mutual liable for unfair practices, including knowing violations, and awarded damages for mental anguish and loss of credit reputation. On appeal, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support findings of knowing violations and mental anguish damages, but no evidence for loss of credit reputation. Consequently, the judgment was modified to reduce actual and additional damages, with attorney's fees remanded for recalculation. The remainder of the judgment was affirmed.

Insurance Bad FaithUnfair Settlement PracticesTexas Insurance Code ViolationsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMental Anguish DamagesCredit Reputation DamagesAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsStatutory Interpretation
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kee

Tan-ja Kee was fired by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in response to filing and settling a workers' compensation claim. Kee sued Wal-Mart for discriminatory firing under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307c, seeking actual and exemplary damages. A jury awarded Kee $4,500 in actual damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages, finding Wal-Mart acted with malice. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the recoverability of exemplary damages and the sufficiency of evidence for malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing precedent that exemplary damages are recoverable and concluding that the jury's finding of malice and the damage award were supported by sufficient evidence and not excessive.

discriminatory firingworkers' compensationexemplary damagesmaliceTexas lawretaliatory dischargeemployee rightsemployer liabilityjury verdictappellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

This case concerns the determination of compensatory damages and front pay for Plaintiff Sharon Pollard against Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. The Court previously found DuPont liable for Title VII discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a damages hearing in July 2003, the Court concluded Plaintiff could not return to work due to severe anxiety and depression stemming from harassment and DuPont's insufficient response. The Court awarded Plaintiff $1,004,374.00 in front pay through age 65, determining she had adequately mitigated her damages. Additionally, $950,000.00 in compensatory damages was awarded for emotional distress, with a future hearing scheduled to determine punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentCompensatory DamagesFront PayIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderMitigation of DamagesExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dell R. Cullum v. Dalene M. White and Diamond A. Ranch

Dell Cullum appealed a judgment from a trial court, which had awarded Dalene White actual damages, punitive damages, and a permanent injunction based on her libel claim. Cullum, a former employee of White's Diamond A Ranch, disseminated defamatory emails and created a website containing highly negative allegations against White and her business. The jury found in favor of White, awarding significant damages for mental anguish, damage to reputation, and exemplary damages. The appellate court, however, reversed the award of exemplary damages due to a non-unanimous jury verdict on the underlying libel claim and set aside the permanent injunction, citing an error in its imposition as a pretrial sanction. The judgment for actual damages for libel was affirmed in all other respects.

DefamationLibelExemplary DamagesPermanent InjunctionPretrial SanctionsFree SpeechTortious InterferenceEmotional DistressSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
51
Case No. 1:06-cv-01137
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2009

Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors

Plaintiff Douglas Baker filed a civil action against Defendant Windsor Republic Doors (WRD) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tennessee Handicap Act (THA), and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. A jury found WRD liable for both claims, awarding Baker back pay and compensatory damages. The Court granted judgment for WRD on the discrimination claim but sustained the retaliation claim. This order addresses the availability of compensatory damages for ADA retaliation claims, an issue with conflicting legal authority among federal courts. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, concluded that compensatory damages are available for ADA retaliation claims and found that the THRA and THA also provide alternative grounds for sustaining the award. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding compensatory damages was denied, and the jury's $29,500 compensatory award was upheld.

Americans with Disabilities ActADA RetaliationTennessee Handicap ActTennessee Human Rights ActCompensatory DamagesJury AwardStatutory InterpretationDisability DiscriminationCivil RightsEmployment Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Missouri Valley, Inc. v. Putman

Haskell B. Putman, Jr., an employee of Missouri Valley, Inc., died after falling through an unbarricaded hole at a construction site in Potter County. His beneficiaries, including his widow Juanita Lucille Putman, brought a wrongful death action seeking exemplary damages from Missouri Valley, Inc., alleging gross negligence. The jury found Missouri Valley, Inc. guilty of gross negligence and awarded $50,000 in exemplary damages. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding insufficient evidence to support the gross negligence findings. The court clarified that Texas law requires an "entire want of care" or "conscious indifference" to justify exemplary damages, which was not met given Missouri Valley's established safety program, thereby negating the recovery of exemplary damages.

Wrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Construction AccidentAppellate ReviewConscious IndifferenceSafety Program
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. World Airways, Inc.

The plaintiff in this action alleged wrongful discharge from World Airways on June 19, 1981, due to union organizing efforts, in violation of the Railway Labor Act. The defendant moved to strike demands for damages beyond backpay, including emotional distress, injury to reputation, and punitive damages. The court found the defendant's cited precedents distinguishable and emphasized the strong public policy for comprehensive tort damages in cases where an employee lacks union representation. Such damages would deter illegal employer conduct that impedes unionization and facilitate collective bargaining. Therefore, the court denied the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's damage demands.

Railway Labor Actwrongful dischargeunion organizingpunitive damagesemotional distressbackpaylabor disputesemployer misconductcollective bargainingmotion to strike
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 1995

Sager v. Local 1199 Drug, Hospital & Health Care Employees Union

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment that dismissed the plaintiff's complaint against all defendants. This judgment also brought up for review an earlier order from the same court which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that even if the words alleged by the plaintiff could lead a reasonable person to believe the defendants were accusing the plaintiff of actual criminality, the plaintiff failed to plead or prove any compensable pecuniary damages directly caused by these words. Additionally, the court found the plaintiff's allegations of general impairment of reputation to be inadequate boilerplate. Consequently, the plaintiff could not proceed solely on a claim of emotional distress without demonstrating compensable pecuniary or reputation damages.

Summary JudgmentDismissal of ComplaintDefamationPecuniary DamagesReputation DamagesEmotional DistressAppellate ReviewAffirmanceConstitutional ProtectionLegal Opinion
References
5
Case No. 13-04-358-CV, 13-04-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Montemayor v. Ortiz

This consolidated appeal involves a declaratory judgment action and counterclaims for damages. Appellants G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham Jr. sought to collect a 1990 judgment against Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez and Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada by claiming Becky Ortiz's business, Schor's, was community property subject to levy. They obtained an ex parte receivership, prompting Ortiz to file counterclaims for wrongful conduct including abuse of process, malicious prosecution, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgments for Ortiz, ruling the 1990 debt was contractual and Schor's was her special community property, not liable for Celada's debt. A jury awarded Ortiz actual and punitive damages on her counterclaims. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgments in favor of Ortiz, but reversed and rendered the judgment for damages, finding no legal sufficiency of evidence for any of Ortiz's tort claims, thereby also precluding punitive damages and mental anguish awards.

Declaratory JudgmentEx Parte ReceivershipCommunity PropertySpecial Community PropertyTortious ConductAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment Review
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,067 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