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

Fort Worth Independent School District v. Ricks

Mary Ricks, a teacher, sustained a knee injury at work in 2004. The Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers’ Compensation found it a compensable injury, a decision upheld by the Appeals Panel. The Fort Worth Independent School District appealed to the district court, which granted Ricks' summary judgment. The District then appealed this decision, arguing Ricks' injury was not compensable under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act because it lacked a sufficient connection to her employment, comparing it to 'merely walking.' The appellate court, however, distinguished the case from a prior ruling and affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Ricks was engaged in her duties when injured.

Workers' CompensationCompensable InjuryCourse and Scope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor LawKnee InjurySchool TeacherPersonal Comfort DoctrineCausation
References
9
Case No. 08-07-00201-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2009

Fort Worth Independent School District, Self-Insured v. Mary E. Ricks

Mary E. Ricks, a school teacher, suffered a right knee injury in November 2004 while preparing for class, diagnosed as an acutely torn anterior cruciate ligament and menisci, requiring multiple surgeries. The Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers' Compensation and its Appeals Panel determined the injury was compensable. The Fort Worth Independent School District appealed this administrative decision to the district court, which granted summary judgment in favor of Ricks. The District then appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that Ricks' injury was not compensable under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act because there was no connection between the knee injury and her employment, and she would have confronted the risks of merely walking irrespective of her employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that Ricks was engaged in activities within the course and scope of her employment when the injury occurred and that the District failed to disprove her claim as a matter of law.

Workers' Compensation ActCompensable InjurySummary Judgment AppealCourse and Scope of EmploymentKnee InjurySchool TeacherAppellate Court DecisionTexas Labor CodeAffirmed JudgmentWorkplace Injury
References
11
Case No. W2018-00999-WCAB-WC-CT
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2018

Muncy, Rick O. v. Premium Distributors, Inc.

This interlocutory appeal concerns employee Rick O. Muncy's request to return to his authorized treating physician for a low back injury sustained in a July 2016 work accident. The employer, Premium Distributors, Inc., refused to authorize the evaluation, contending the low back complaints had resolved and were not primarily work-related. Following an expedited hearing, the trial judge ordered the employer to authorize a return visit. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial judge's order, concluding that the preponderance of evidence supported the determination. The Board also found no abuse of discretion in the trial judge's rejection of the medical questionnaire's opinion on causation, deeming it ambiguous and non-determinative given the doctor's lack of recent examination. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the decision.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsLow Back InjuryExpedited HearingCausationMedical OpinionEvidenceStandard of ReviewAppellate ReviewTennessee
References
9
Case No. M2011-00914-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2012

Rick Earl v. Dr. Raquel Hatter, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Human Services

Married couple Rick Earl and Wanda Earl sought judicial review of a Department of Human Services decision denying their Medicaid eligibility under the “Pickle Amendment” to the Social Security Act. The Chancery Court for Davidson County affirmed this decision. Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville also affirmed the judgment of the Chancery Court, adopting its opinion as its own. The court found that while Mr. Earl met some criteria for Pickle Amendment consideration, the couple's household income still exceeded the individual benefit rate for Medicaid eligibility. Mrs. Earl was deemed ineligible as she was not receiving OASDI benefits at the time.

MedicaidPickle AmendmentSocial Security ActSSIOASDIEligibilityJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationGovernment Benefits
References
3
Case No. 01-03-00984-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2005

AAA Office Coffee Service, Inc. v. Debra K. Hansen, Debbie Clodfelter and Rick Clodfelter

AAA Office Coffee Service, Inc. (Appellant) challenged a trial court's judgment awarding damages to Debra K. Hansen, Debbie Clodfelter, and Rick Clodfelter (Appellees) for sexual harassment, retaliation, and employment discrimination. The jury found that Hansen and Debbie Clodfelter were subjected to sexual harassment by AAA, that a discriminatory practice motivated AAA's decision to fire them, and that AAA acted with malice or reckless indifference. AAA contended the evidence was insufficient and that the trial court erred in denying its motions for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings regarding sexual harassment, lack of employer excuse, retaliation, and exemplary damages, ultimately overruling all points of error.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationEmployment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentExemplary DamagesJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceSupervisor MisconductEmployer LiabilityAffirmative Defense
References
33
Case No. 03-00-00603-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2001

Daniel T. O'Dell v. Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General for the State of Texas

Daniel T. O'Dell appealed from a trial court order that granted a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the appellees, Rick Perry, Governor of the State of Texas, and John Cornyn, Attorney General for the State of Texas. O'Dell's complaint was vague but appeared to allege a breach of contract related to electrical generator installation or repair in state-owned buildings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, citing the State's sovereign immunity which protects it from lawsuits for damages unless waived. The court noted that an administrative procedure established by the legislature is the exclusive method for resolving such breach of contract claims against the State. Additionally, the court addressed O'Dell's complaints regarding a jury trial and a worker's compensation issue, finding no error.

Breach of ContractSovereign ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureState GovernmentTexas LawJury TrialWorker's Compensation IssueGovernment CodeLabor Code
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sybron Corp. v. Wetzel

In this dissenting opinion, Justice Wachtler argues against the majority's decision regarding long-arm jurisdiction over De Dietrich, a New Jersey corporation. He contends that the mere hiring of a former employee (Wetzel) by De Dietrich, even with an inferred intent to obtain Sybron's trade secrets, does not constitute a "tortious act" required by CPLR 302 (subd [a], par 3) for establishing jurisdiction, especially without actual disclosure or use of trade secrets. Wachtler emphasizes the delicate balance between protecting trade secrets and ensuring employee mobility and fair competition. He warns that the majority's interpretation could create an overly broad cause of action, impeding skilled workers' ability to change employers. Consequently, he advocates for affirming the Appellate Division's dismissal of the suit against De Dietrich for lack of jurisdiction.

Long-arm jurisdictionTrade secretsUnfair competitionEmployee mobilityDissenting opinionCPLR 302NondomiciliaryTortious actJurisdictionCivil Practice Law and Rules
References
5
Case No. 2015-08-0454
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2017

Ricks, Carmen v. Methodist Healthcare

The employee, Carmen L. Ricks, sought mileage reimbursement for travel to authorized medical providers located sixty miles from her home. The employer, Methodist Healthcare, and its insurance carrier, PMA Group, refused to pay, arguing she should only be reimbursed for travel from her new workplace. The Workers' Compensation Judge, Allen Phillips, interpreted Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-204(a)(6)(A) and determined that the statute provides for reimbursement from either the employee's residence or workplace. The court found Ms. Ricks' choice to schedule appointments on her days off to avoid wage loss reasonable and ordered Methodist to pay $221.29 in mileage reimbursement and future consistent reimbursements.

Workers' CompensationMileage ReimbursementMedical ExpensesStatutory InterpretationTravel ExpensesReasonable ExpensesDisjunctive Article 'or'Employee RightsEmployer ResponsibilitiesTennessee Law
References
5
Case No. 95 Civ. 7051
Regular Panel Decision

Dietrich v. Bauer

Non-party Allied Irish Banks, p.l.c. (AIB) sought reconsideration and reargument of a court order from August 9, 2000, requesting that the order be vacated or, in the alternative, for permission to submit additional evidence. AIB also requested a stay pending appeal if its motion was denied. Plaintiff Del Dietrich opposed the motion. The Court granted the motion solely for the limited purpose of clarifying its previous opinion regarding the definition of 'control' under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, particularly concerning parent-subsidiary relationships in document discovery. The Court, however, denied AIB's request to vacate the prior order and found AIB's arguments regarding the Hague Convention to be repetitive. The motion for a stay pending appeal was also denied, and AIB was ordered to produce the documents within ten days. Additionally, the parties were directed to attempt to reach an agreement on a confidentiality order.

Reconsideration MotionReargument MotionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)Local Civil Rule 6.3Document DiscoveryCorporate ControlParent-Subsidiary RelationshipFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 45Interlocutory AppealStay
References
25
Case No. M2012-02348-COA-R9-CV, 07C1158, 05C3627
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2013

Kathleen Baker and Rick Baker v. Deborah A. Snedegar

Plaintiff filed suit against a medical legal examiner alleging the medical legal examiner was negligent in failing to inform her of certain preventative medications. The medical legal examiner contended she was a government employee protected from liability by the Governmental Tort Liability Act and moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motion because the medical legal examiner could not prove she was paid by the payroll department of the governmental entity at issue, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-20-107(a)(2). The medical legal examiner appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that the defendant did not satisfy the second requirement of subsection 107(a)(2) as she was paid from a professional services account as a vendor, not an employee. The Court found that Ms. Snedegar's interpretation of the statute would render the term 'payroll' meaningless and would inappropriately broaden the definition of a governmental employee.

Governmental Tort Liability ActMedical Legal ExaminerGovernment Employee DefinitionSummary Judgment AppealPayroll Department DistinctionProfessional Services AccountVendor StatusSovereign ImmunityStatutory InterpretationNegligence Claim
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 69 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