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

Jeu v. Retail Clerk's Union, Local 455

Mary Lynne Jeu, a pharmacist, sued Retail Clerk’s Union, Local 455 AFI^CIO, Van Blades, and Retail Clerk’s International Association for slander. The alleged slander occurred when Van Blades, a union employee, accused Jeu of being "paid off" by her employer to speak against unionization during a meeting. A jury initially found in favor of Jeu, awarding damages for medical treatment, injury to character, and punitive damages. However, the trial court granted the defendants' motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, requiring "actual malice" as defined by federal labor law precedents, a stricter standard than the jury's finding of malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that recovery for slander under the trial court's original definition of malice could not be sustained given the requirement of "actual malice" in the context of labor disputes.

SlanderDefamationLabor RelationsUnion ActivitiesActual MaliceReckless DisregardJury Verdict OverturnedJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate AffirmationTexas Civil Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03246 [238 AD3d 665]
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

Duran v. ERY Retail Podium LLC

The case involves an appeal concerning a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The plaintiff, Luis Duran, established prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by testifying that he fell from an unsecured 12-foot A-frame ladder that wobbled, causing him to miss a step. The defendants failed to raise an issue of fact, as their arguments regarding inconsistent out-of-court statements were found not to contradict the plaintiff's deposition testimony or C-3 form. The court also rejected the defendants' argument that the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker, reiterating that a plaintiff's own negligence is not a defense to absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court's order granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denying the defendants' motion was unanimously affirmed.

Fall from heightUnsecured A-frame ladderSummary judgmentAbsolute liabilityRecalcitrant worker defenseComparative negligenceAppellate Division First DepartmentLabor Law violationWorker's compensation C-3 formDeposition testimony
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anzaldua v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Esther Anzaldua against American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company, the compensation carrier. Anzaldua was injured on the job and sued after rejecting an award from the Texas Industrial Accident Board. A jury awarded her damages for partial incapacity and medical expenses, but Anzaldua appealed, alleging the medical award was insufficient, that certain medical reports were improperly admitted due to hearsay, and that a supplemental jury charge was coercive. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the jury's verdict supported by evidence, the medical reports properly admitted, and the supplemental charge not coercive.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesJury VerdictEvidence AdmissibilitySupplemental Jury ChargeCoercionIncapacityAppealTexas LawInsurance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. White

Electric Mutual Liability Insurance Company appealed a worker’s compensation judgment concerning Ira Gillis White, who sustained a back injury. A jury found White totally incapacitated for three months and permanently partially incapacitated thereafter, establishing his weekly earning capacity at $150 during the partial incapacity period. Electric Mutual contended that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of White’s pre-injury wages and that the jury’s finding on earning capacity was unsupported or against the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, explaining that worker’s compensation aims to compensate for loss of earning capacity, not just actual wages, and that post-injury earnings do not conclusively prove capacity. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's assessment of White's diminished earning capacity, considering his pain and physical limitations despite continued employment.

Worker's CompensationIncapacityEarning CapacityBack InjuryHerniated DiscMedical EvidenceWage ExclusionJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1990

Fullenwider v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co.

This is an appeal in a worker's compensation case. The plaintiff, Lucille Fullenwider, alleged she developed industrial asthma while working for Motorola, Inc., leading to total and permanent incapacity. The jury found she did not suffer an occupational injury, and the trial court rendered judgment in favor of the defendant, American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Company. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in permitting two undisclosed expert witnesses to testify when interrogatories requesting their names were not supplemented thirty days prior to trial. The appellate court concluded that while the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony without a finding of good cause, the error was harmless as the plaintiff was not prejudiced, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Expert Witness TestimonyDiscovery RulesGood Cause ExceptionTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionHarmful ErrorWorker's CompensationIndustrial AsthmaOccupational InjuryUndisclosed Witnesses
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capps v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co.

Archie Capps appealed a take-nothing judgment, arguing that American Mutual Liability Insurance Company improperly deducted both worker's compensation and social security benefits from his disability insurance payments. Capps, disabled in 1972, received disability policy payments from 1973 and a lump-sum worker's compensation settlement in 1974, which included attorney's fees. He also received monthly social security benefits. The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the insurance policy's anti-duplication clause permitted the deduction of both worker's compensation and social security payments. Furthermore, the court found that attorney's fees awarded in the worker's compensation case were part of the total amounts payable and were properly deducted, and that the calculation of payments was correct.

AppealDisability InsuranceWorker's CompensationSocial Security BenefitsAnti-duplication ClauseAttorney's FeesLump-sum SettlementBenefit DeductionsPolicy InterpretationInsurance Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Bradshaw

This case focuses on determining the average weekly wage for plaintiff Gene Bradshaw to calculate workmen's compensation benefits. Bradshaw, an independent contractor for Champion International Corporation, was required to pay for workmen's compensation coverage through defendant American Mutual Liability Insurance Company, with premiums deducted from his pulpwood earnings. The core dispute arose from American Mutual's attempt to reduce Bradshaw's gross earnings by various expenses (labor, equipment, etc.) to calculate his average weekly wage, a method Bradshaw contested. The trial court and subsequently the appellate court affirmed that Bradshaw was entitled to maximum benefits, emphasizing that the insurance premiums were based on gross earnings and the statute did not differentiate between gross and net earnings for wage computation, thereby rejecting the proposed deductions. The court found that where it's impracticable to compute average weekly wages, it should consider what a person in similar employment in the same district would earn.

Workmen's CompensationAverage Weekly WageIndependent ContractorGross EarningsNet EarningsInsurance PremiumsStatutory InterpretationLiberal ConstructionTimber IndustryPulpwood Harvesting
References
2
Case No. 05-19-01264-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2021

MacY's Retail Holdings, Inc. v. Audon Benavides

Audon Benavides sued Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. for retaliation, alleging adverse employment actions after he participated in a disability discrimination case filed by a former supervisor. The trial court found in Benavides's favor and awarded damages for mental anguish and lost future earning capacity. Macy's appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for retaliation and the damages awarded. The Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of retaliation and the award for mental anguish, concluding that Benavides engaged in protected activity and suffered an adverse employment action. However, the appellate court reversed the award for lost future earning capacity, deeming the evidence legally insufficient.

RetaliationDisability DiscriminationEmployment LawAdverse Employment ActionCausationBurden-Shifting FrameworkMcDonnell DouglasDamages AwardMental AnguishLost Earning Capacity
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 5,198 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