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. 13-05-055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Scott Cerre v. Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP

Scott Cerre, an employee of Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP, was injured on the job and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He was later terminated under Odfjell's absence-control policy after taking a six-month leave of absence. Cerre sued Odfjell, alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Odfjell. On appeal, Cerre contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both his discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Odfjell successfully negated elements of the discrimination claim and that Cerre's termination was due to a uniformly enforced absence-control policy, not retaliation.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCausal ConnectionHarassment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Fetahaj v. Starbucks Corporation

Claimant alleged retaliatory discharge under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 after being terminated for providing false information about a workplace injury. Claimant and a coworker initially submitted incident reports stating claimant fell due to the coworker moving a bin. However, surveillance video revealed the coworker intentionally lifted claimant's legs, causing the fall. Both employees were terminated for falsifying reports. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the retaliatory discharge claim, finding the termination was due to misconduct. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimant was discharged for misrepresenting the accident's circumstances, not in retaliation for a workers' compensation claim.

retaliatory dischargeworkers' compensation lawfalsification of recordsemployee misconductincident reportsurveillance videocausal nexusboard determinationappellate reviewsubstantial evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Donohue v. Scandinavian Airlines of North America, Inc.

The claimant sustained a disabling wrist fracture in April 1982 and was cleared by her physician and the employer's carrier's physician to return to work by August 1, 1982. However, she informed her employer she would not return, citing continued difficulties, and subsequently missed a scheduled examination by the company physician, claiming a broken foot. Her employment was terminated on August 18, 1982. The claimant alleged retaliatory discharge in violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120. Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board found her testimony not credible and concluded that the employer had a valid, non-retaliatory reason for termination due to her uncooperative behavior. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, determining it was supported by substantial evidence and that the employer was justified in the discharge.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer JustificationEmployee UncooperativenessMedical Examination FindingsDisability ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Ry. & Terminal Co. v. Horton

M. C. Horton sued Dallas Railway & Terminal Company to recover damages for personal injuries to his wife, Mrs. Adeline Horton, sustained when her coat was caught while alighting from a street car, causing her to be thrown and dragged. The jury found the defendant negligent and awarded Horton $3,000. The Dallas Railway & Terminal Company appealed the judgment, raising three main issues: alleged double recovery allowed by the jury charge on damages, juror misconduct during deliberations, and alleged coercion of the jury by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in the jury charge, upholding the trial court's discretion regarding juror misconduct, and concluding that the court's instructions to the jury regarding conflicting answers were not coercive.

Personal InjuryStreet Car AccidentNegligenceDamagesJury MisconductCoercionAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionCivil ProcedureLoss of Earning Capacity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Saint Francis Hospital, Inc.

Johnny A. Johnson, Jr. appealed the trial court's directed verdict in favor of St. Francis Hospital, Inc. in a retaliatory discharge case. Johnson claimed he was terminated for filing workers' compensation claims after sustaining two back injuries. The hospital asserted he was discharged for being unavailable for work due to lifting restrictions and his refusal to accept a leave of absence according to hospital policy. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no causal link between Johnson's workers' compensation claims and his termination. The court concluded that Johnson was discharged because he chose not to apply for a leave of absence, rendering him unavailable for his job duties.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimEmployment terminationMedical restrictionsLeave of absence policyEmployee at willCausalityPrima facie caseDirected verdictAppeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hollis v. Marriott Hotel

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from June 2, 1993, which found that her discharge was not retaliatory after she filed a compensation claim. The claimant suffered a compensable injury and did not report to work while recovering. The employer was unable to contact the claimant due to her failure to update her address. After sending correspondence regarding her return to work with no response, her employment was terminated. At the time of termination, she was unable to perform her usual duties. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that there was no discrimination under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, affirming the decision.

retaliationdiscriminationworkers' compensationemployment terminationaddress notificationcompensable injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 1997

Mason v. Seaton

This Tennessee Supreme Court case reviews a retaliatory discharge claim brought by employee Maxine O. Mason against her employers, Kenneth M. and Laurel Seaton. Mason was fired after reporting fire safety violations and locked exit doors at the defendants' hotel to city officials. The trial court initially dismissed the complaint, requiring proof that the employer explicitly directed the employee to remain silent. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this, and the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the "whistleblower" statute (Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-1-304) does not require an employer to have expressly forbidden the employee from reporting illegal activities for a retaliatory discharge claim to stand. The Court found sufficient evidence of illegal activity and a causal link between Mason's report and her termination.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionEmployment LawSummary JudgmentPublic PolicyFire SafetyEmployee RightsTennessee Supreme CourtStatutory InterpretationWrongful Termination
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southmayd v. Apria Healthcare, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Southmayd, a 58-year-old, sued Apria Healthcare, Inc. for age discrimination and retaliation under federal and state laws, alleging he was terminated in a Reduction in Force (RIF) and not rehired due to his age and protected activities. The court granted summary judgment to Apria on Southmayd's age discrimination claims related to his termination and failure to rehire due to lack of a prima facie case and administrative exhaustion, respectively. Similarly, summary judgment was granted for his retaliatory discharge claims, as no causal link was established between his complaints and termination. However, the court denied summary judgment on Southmayd's claim of retaliatory failure to rehire, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding the decision-maker's knowledge of his lawsuit and motivations. Consequently, the case will proceed to trial on the retaliatory failure to rehire claim.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationReduction in ForceSummary JudgmentADEATHRATPPAEmployment LawFailure to RehireCausal Connection
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Division-Tranter, Inc. v. Carrozza

This case addresses whether an employer is entitled to summary judgment in a retaliatory discharge action under Workers’ Compensation Law when a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination is established and the employee lacks evidence of retaliatory motive. Mark Carrozza was terminated by Texas Division-Tranter, Inc. for violating a "three-day rule" in their collective bargaining agreement after being absent without notice following a work injury and medical leave. Carrozza alleged retaliatory discharge for filing a compensation claim under Tex. Labor Code § 451.001. The employer provided summary judgment evidence of a neutral explanation for termination, which Carrozza failed to controvert with competent evidence beyond his subjective beliefs. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, upholding the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Tranter, finding Carrozza's subjective beliefs insufficient.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentThree-day RuleAbsence PolicyCollective Bargaining AgreementBurden of ProofSubjective BeliefsAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 3,981 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