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

Kastor v. Sam's Wholesale Club

Plaintiff William A. Kastor sued Sam’s Wholesale Club for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Kastor, a bakery department manager, argued he was not exempt from overtime requirements as he spent most of his time on non-managerial tasks. Sam's contended that Kastor was an executive or administrative employee, thus exempt under FLSA regulations. The court applied the FLSA 'short test' for executive exemption, finding Kastor's primary duty was management of the bakery department, despite his claims of time spent on non-managerial duties. The court considered the importance of his managerial tasks, his exercise of discretion, and his supervision of other employees. The court granted Sam’s Wholesale Club’s Motion for Summary Judgment, dismissing the action with prejudice, concluding that Kastor was an exempt executive employee.

overtime compensationFair Labor Standards ActFLSAexecutive exemptionadministrative exemptionsummary judgmentprimary dutymanagementbakery departmentwage and hour
References
10
Case No. 14-05-00137-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2005

in Re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Sam's Club, & Sam's East, Inc.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Sam=s Club, and Sam=s East, Inc. (collectively, Wal-Mart) filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, seeking to compel the trial court to vacate its order setting a joint trial for Elena Lopez, Margie Daniels, and LaFrance Jones. These plaintiffs had sued Wal-Mart for alleged failures to pay for missed rest/meal breaks and off-the-clock work. Wal-Mart argued that a joint trial for three plaintiffs would cause jury confusion and prejudice, making an appeal an inadequate remedy. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition, concluding that Wal-Mart possessed an adequate remedy by appeal, as the circumstances of the joint trial were not extraordinary enough to warrant mandamus relief.

MandamusJoint TrialClass ActionAppellate RemedyAbuse of DiscretionConsolidation OrderTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureFair Labor Standards ActUnpaid WagesRest Breaks
References
10
Case No. ADJ3333134 (OXN 0130576) MF ADJ1434344 (OXN 0130577)
Regular
Oct 08, 2013

MARYANN HANSEN vs. SAM'S CLUB, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY as administered by YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to Sam's Club's petition after an order was issued to pay a $\$12,504.04$ lien without a hearing. While a proof of service indicated Sam's Club was notified of the lien conference, the Board found that Labor Code section 5506 requires a hearing if a defendant fails to appear or object, not a default. Therefore, the previous order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for a hearing on the merits of the lien claim. The trial judge may also consider sanctions against the defendant for their non-appearance and failure to object.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ConferenceNotice of Intention to Allow LienDue ProcessProof of ServiceElectronic Adjudication Management SystemLabor Code Section 5506Substantial JusticeDisposition on Merits
References
9
Case No. 14-04-00015-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2005

Cheol Mo Jea v. Sam J. Cho and Mi Rea Cho C/B/A Sam's Food Store

In this personal injury case, Cheol Mo Jea appealed a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) after being shot during a robbery at Sam's Food Store, alleging the owners' negligence in failing to provide a safe workplace. Jea claimed the absence of a key to lock the door, inadequate exterior lighting, and lack of a second employee caused his injuries. The trial court granted the JNOV, finding no evidence of proximate cause. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Jea failed to demonstrate that his injuries would not have occurred but for the alleged omissions, as there was no empirical data or expert opinion supporting a causal link.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictSafe WorkplaceRobberyCausationLegal SufficiencyAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ankrom v. Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd.

This case concerns a dispute between former professional football player Scott Randall Ankrom and his ex-employer, the Dallas Cowboys Football Club, Ltd., regarding worker's compensation benefits. Ankrom, injured in 1989, filed a claim in 1991, leading to a 1992 award by the Texas Worker’s Compensation Commission. The Club, through its insurer, appealed this award, seeking reimbursement for advance payments made to Ankrom based on a contractual right. The trial court sided with the Club, but Ankrom appealed, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the Club failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not notifying the Commission of its reimbursement claim. The appellate court agreed, holding that compliance with the statutory procedure for employer reimbursement (Article 8309, section 4(b)) was mandatory and a prerequisite for district court jurisdiction. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment and dismissed the Club's claims.

Worker's Compensation LawAdministrative ExhaustionJurisdiction DisputeEmployer ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationTexas Civil StatutesAdvance PaymentsContractual ObligationAppellate ReviewProfessional Athlete Injury
References
19
Case No. M2001-01616-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2002

Gale Smith & Co. v. The Governors Club

This breach of contract case involves an insurance broker, Gale Smith & Company, Inc., suing a real estate developer, The Governors Club, L.L.C., for unpaid insurance premiums. The dispute arose after the Golf Club's manager, David Miller, entered into a master insurance binder with Gale Smith, which later included The Governors Club. Following Miller's termination, new policies were issued to The Governors Club, but the new management company declined to pay the premiums. The trial court found that Miller had apparent authority to bind The Governors Club and that a valid contract existed, awarding Gale Smith unpaid premiums. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this decision, concluding that the trial court's findings on apparent authority and contract enforceability were supported.

Apparent Authority DoctrineInsurance Contract DisputeAgency LawCorporate ManagementContractual BreachAppellate Review StandardsTrial Court FindingsCommercial InsuranceReal Estate LLCPremium Payment
References
10
Case No. 04-0550
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2006

Fifth Club, Inc. and David A. West v. Roberto Ramirez

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed the liability of an employer for the acts of an independent contractor providing security services. The case stemmed from an incident at Club Rodéo where security guard David West, an independent contractor, injured Roberto Ramirez, who subsequently sued Fifth Club, Inc. (the owner) and West. Ramirez argued for vicarious liability against Fifth Club based on a "personal character exception" for security work, and alleged negligence and malice in West's hiring. The Court declined to adopt a distinct personal character exception, asserting that employer liability is governed by existing control or nondelegable duty exceptions. Finding insufficient evidence that Fifth Club controlled West's actions or was negligent/malicious in his hiring, the Court reversed the judgment against Fifth Club, Inc. However, the Court affirmed the award of future mental anguish damages against David West, finding sufficient evidence to support this claim.

Independent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityPersonal Character ExceptionSecurity ServicesNegligent HiringMaliceFuture Mental Anguish DamagesPremises LiabilityNondelegable DutyTortious Acts
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chapa v. Club Corp. of America

Elvira Chapa, individually and as next friend for her minor son Julian Chapa, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Club Corporation of America and its affiliates. Julian, then 15, was injured in a car accident after allegedly consuming alcohol provided by his employer while working. The lawsuit claimed the Club negligently breached its duty by furnishing alcohol to a minor. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, holding that the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code § 106.06 imposes a legal duty not to provide alcohol to minors, and found a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the Club's actual knowledge of Julian's minority, thus requiring a trial on the merits.

Minors and AlcoholEmployer NegligenceStatutory ViolationDuty of CareSummary Judgment ReversalActual Knowledge DisputeTexas Alcoholic Beverage CodeProximate CauseUnderage DrinkingPremises Liability
References
8
Case No. ADJ8616799
Regular
Aug 16, 2013

STEPHANIE LLAMAS vs. SAM'S CLUB, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, Administered By YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by a party in the matter of Stephanie Llamas vs. Sam's Club. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has issued an order dismissing this petition. The dismissal is due to the petitioner's voluntary withdrawal of the petition. Therefore, the Board has formally closed the reconsideration process for the June 14, 2013 decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalWithdrawnStephanie LlamasSam's ClubAce American InsuranceYork Insurance Services GroupWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8616799Oxnard District Office
References
0
Case No. 05-15-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2016

J&M Sales of Texas, LLC v. Anette H. Sams

Anette H. Sams sued J&M Sales of Texas, LLC for negligence after sustaining an injury from a falling shelf in a retail store. Sams secured a default judgment for $45,350.79 against J&M Sales. J&M Sales subsequently moved for a new trial, asserting that their failure to file an answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, that they possessed a meritorious defense based on Sams's potential contributory negligence, and that a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to Sams. The trial court denied this motion. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that J&M Sales had successfully met all three elements of the Craddock standard for granting a new trial, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Negligence ClaimDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock StandardMeritorious DefenseConscious IndifferenceContributory NegligenceAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 361 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