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. M1998-00023-SC-WCM-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2001

Robert Cunningham, Jr.,e t al v. Shelton Security Service, Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the estate of employee Robert W. Cunningham, Sr., who died of heart failure while on duty as a security guard. The claim for death benefits against the employer, Shelton Security Service, Inc., was initially dismissed by the trial court, which found the emotional stress experienced was not extraordinary for a security guard. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this dismissal, deeming there was sufficient evidence of causation. The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review and agreed with the Panel, concluding that the threat to kill the employee during a confrontation constituted a mental or emotional stimulus of an unusual and abnormal nature, making his death compensable. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationHeart AttackEmotional StressSecurity GuardCausationUnusual Employment StressDeath BenefitsAppellate ReviewRemandTrial Court Error
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1992

Berly v. D & L Security Services & Investigations, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment regarding the wrongful death of Anecletas Berly, a Kroger employee, who was killed by a shoplifter during an apprehension attempt by a security guard, Elbert Phillips, employed by D & L Security Services and Investigations, Inc. The appellants, including Berly's family and Transportation Insurance Company (intervening to protect subrogation interest), sued D & L and Phillips for negligence, alleging improper security and apprehension procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, finding no duty and no proximate cause. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding foreseeability, proximate cause, and legal privilege. The court found that evidence of prior criminal activity at the store raised a fact issue on duty and that Phillips's alleged violations of security procedures could be a cause-in-fact of Berly's death.

NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival StatutesSummary Judgment AppealForeseeabilityProximate CauseSecurity Guard LiabilityShoplifting IncidentThird-Party Criminal ActEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Shelton Security Service, Inc.

The case involves the appeal by the estate of Robert W. Cunningham, Sr., from a chancery court judgment dismissing a claim for death benefits against Shelton Security Service, Inc. The employee, a security guard, died of heart failure while on duty after a verbal confrontation with suspected shoplifters who threatened to kill him. The trial court initially dismissed the claim, ruling that the emotional stress was not extraordinary or unusual for his occupation. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel reversed this decision. The Supreme Court granted review and affirmed the Panel's decision, concluding that the threat of death constituted an unusual and abnormal emotional stimulus, thus reversing the trial court's dismissal and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsHeart FailureEmotional StressArising Out of EmploymentUnusual StressSecurity GuardCausationReversed and RemandedSudden Cardiac Death
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. Summit Security Services Inc.

The plaintiff, a security guard, brought a retaliation claim under Labor Law § 215 against his former employer, Summit Security Services Inc., and alleged co-employers, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Kirk Leon. Plaintiff alleged termination resulted from a complaint about underpayment by a prior employer. HHC and Leon moved to dismiss, arguing no right of action, while Summit argued it was not the employer at the time of the protected activity. The court denied HHC and Leon's motion, concluding HHC could be considered 'any other person' under the expanded Wage Theft Prevention Act and was not exempt as a political subdivision. Summit's motion to dismiss was granted, as the court found Labor Law § 215 applied only to employers at the time of the protected activity, and the WTPA did not explicitly extend liability to subsequent employers.

RetaliationLabor Law Section 215Wage Theft Prevention ActWTPAEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissPrevailing WageSecurity IndustryCo-employer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Alli v. Mandel Security Bureau, Inc.

A claimant, working as a security guard at the World Trade Center, suffered an injury on the job due to a fall. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Mandel Security Bureau, Inc. (general employer) and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (special employer) were equally responsible for the claimant's workers' compensation award. The Port Authority appealed this decision, challenging the finding of a special employment relationship. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the existence of a special employment relationship, citing the Port Authority's control over the security guards. Therefore, the Board's decision regarding shared responsibility was upheld.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewSecurity GuardWorld Trade CenterEmployer LiabilityInjury at Work
References
3
Case No. 01-07-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2009

Sembera Security Systems, Inc. A/K/A Sembera Security, Inc. v. El Dorado Insurance Agency, Inc., and Texas Mutual Insurance Company, F/N/A Texas Workers' Compensation Fund and Texas Workers' Compensation Fund, Texas Workers' Compensation Fund

The case involves a dispute between Sembera Security Systems Inc. (Sembera) and Texas Mutual Insurance Company (TMI) regarding the cancellation of Sembera’s workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Sembera sued TMI for breach of contract, alleging that TMI improperly cancelled its policy for non-payment of an "additional premium" during the policy term, leading to the termination of an agreement with En-Touch Systems, Inc. and causing Sembera lost profits. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with the trial court initially ruling in favor of Sembera. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that TMI's cancellation of the policy was justified due to Sembera's failure to repay a $490 portion of the estimated initial premium after the policy's retroactive reinstatement. The appellate court held that TMI had the contractual right to cancel for non-payment of premium.

Breach of ContractWorkers' Compensation InsuranceSummary JudgmentInsurance Policy CancellationNon-payment of PremiumContract InterpretationLost Profits DamagesAppellate ReviewRetroactive ReinstatementInsurance Agent Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2008

Huizar v. Astrue

This case involves an appeal of the Commissioner's decision to deny Social Security disability benefits to the Plaintiff, Ernest Huizar. The District Court, presided over by Judge Xavier Rodriguez, considered the Magistrate Judge Pamela A. Mathy's Report and Recommendation. The Court accepted the recommendation to reverse and remand the Commissioner's decision. The remand instructs the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to comply with SSR 00-4p regarding vocational expert testimony for night watchman, security guard, and gate guard positions, conduct further factual development on whether the school bus monitor job is available full-time, and consider a newly submitted psychological evaluation report.

Social Security Disability BenefitsDisability Insurance BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Vocational Expert TestimonySSR 00-4pDictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT)Residual Functional Capacity (RFC)Ulnar Nerve PalsyPsychological Evaluation
References
18
Case No. 23-0704
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2025

Chad Seward, Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and Point 2 Point Global Security, Inc. v. Rogelio Santander Sr. and Julia Garcia, Individually and as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Rogelio Santander Jr., and Crystal Almeida

Justice Busby's concurring opinion addresses a case involving an off-duty police officer, Chad Seward, who was working as a private security guard for Home Depot and was allegedly negligent, leading to injuries to on-duty officers. The main Court's opinion dismissed claims against Seward due to immunity and reinstated summary judgment for Home Depot and Point 2 Point on vicarious liability claims. Justice Busby highlights that the Court's decision deliberately avoids the significant question of whether employers can be vicariously liable for the torts of off-duty police officers acting within the scope of public employment. The opinion discusses various judicial approaches to this complex issue, contrasting the 'nature of the act' and public policy approaches with the agency law framework adopted by Tennessee courts. Justice Busby concludes by joining the Court's opinion and advocating for future cases to thoroughly explore these considerations within Texas law.

Vicarious LiabilityOff-duty Police OfficerSecurity GuardGovernmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentAgency LawTexas Supreme CourtTort LawScope of EmploymentPublic Policy
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Security National Insurance Co. v. Farmer

Roger Farmer sustained two on-the-job low back injuries in January 1995 and April 1998. Security National Insurance Company was the carrier for the first injury, and Hartford Fire Insurance Company for the second. Disputes arose regarding the compensability of Farmer's L4-5 and L5-S1 disc herniations after April 1998, and which carrier was liable. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission appeals panel affirmed the hearing officer's decision against Security National, finding the January 1995 injury was a producing cause. Security National appealed to the trial court, which applied a substantial evidence rule, limited discovery, and affirmed the appeals panel's decision. On appeal, the higher court determined the trial court erred by applying the incorrect standard of review, ruling that a modified de novo standard should have been used. The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for proceedings consistent with a modified de novo review.

Standard of ReviewModified De Novo ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewCompensability DisputeEligibility for BenefitsDisc Herniation InjurySpinal Injury ClaimInsurance Carrier DisputeAdministrative Law AppealStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McMahan Securities Co. v. Aviator Master Fund, Ltd.

Petitioner McMahan Securities Co., L.R., a securities broker-dealer, sought to stay an arbitration claim initiated by various hedge funds and institutional investors (respondents) before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD), now FINRA. The arbitration claim arose from respondents' purchase of $50 million worth of preferred stock units from nonparties Strategy Real Estate Investments, Ltd. (SREI) and Strategy International Insurance Group, Inc. (SIIG), where McMahan acted as a placement agent. Respondents alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Blue Sky laws, claiming McMahan failed to disclose criminal convictions and legal problems of Strategy's management team and misrepresented Strategy's financial status. McMahan argued that respondents were not its 'customers' under NASD rule 12200 and that a forum selection clause in the subscription agreement precluded arbitration. The court denied McMahan's petition, finding that respondents qualified as McMahan's customers under a broad interpretation of NASD rules and that the dispute arose from McMahan's business activities, thus compelling arbitration. The court also rejected McMahan's attempt to invoke the subscription agreement's forum selection clause, as McMahan was not a signatory to that agreement.

ArbitrationSecurities LawNASD Code of Arbitration ProcedureFINRAPlacement AgentFraud AllegationsNegligent MisrepresentationBlue Sky LawsContract InterpretationForum Selection Clause
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 2,213 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