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. 06-02-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2004

Joseph Dewayne Caster v. State

Russell Burke, Lori Burke, and Bob Anderson (as bankruptcy trustee), collectively 'the Burkes,' sued Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC), Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. (PWW), and Jere Pritchett for damages to their water well and resulting cattle losses following seismic testing. The Burkes alleged negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, and DTPA violations. UPRC cross-appealed, and PWW filed a cross-action against UPRC for tortious interference. The jury initially awarded the Burkes $1.5 million in actual damages and $3 million in punitive damages, and PWW $200,000 for tortious interference. On appeal, the court ruled that the Burkes' negligence claim and PWW's tortious interference claim were barred by the statute of limitations. The appellate court found the jury's damage award for the Burkes' breach of contract claim to be factually insufficient, entitling UPRC to a settlement credit. The court suggested a remittitur, conditionally affirming a reduced judgment for the Burkes if accepted, or else remanding the case for a new trial on damages.

Seismic SurveyWater Well DamageBreach of ContractNegligenceStatute of LimitationsTortious InterferenceCross-AppealDamagesRemittiturFactual Sufficiency
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. 01-04-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Devon SFS Operating , Inc., and IMC Global, Inc. v. First Seismic Corporation, a Delaware Corporation

This declaratory judgment case involved competing interpretations of an indemnity provision in a contract concerning seismic data ownership. Appellants Devon SFS Operating, Inc. and IMC Global, Inc. challenged a trial court ruling that favored Appellee First Seismic Corporation on its indemnity claim and awarded attorney's fees. The dispute centered on whether the indemnity clause covered claims by minority owners. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the interpretation of the indemnity provision and the award of attorney's fees and costs.

Indemnity AgreementContract InterpretationAttorney's FeesDeclaratory JudgmentSeismic DataSuccessor-in-interestJoint VentureAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyFactual Sufficiency
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burke v. Union Pacific Resources Co.

This case details an appeal concerning Russell and Lori Burke and their bankruptcy trustee (collectively 'the Burkes') against Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC) and Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. (PWW), stemming from seismic testing that allegedly damaged their water well, causing significant cattle losses. PWW also filed a cross-action against UPRC for tortious interference. The appellate court ruled that the Burkes' negligence claim and PWW's tortious interference claim were barred by the statute of limitations, resulting in a take-nothing judgment for PWW. For the Burkes' breach of contract claim, the court found the jury's $1.5 million damage award factually insufficient and proposed a $653,700 remittitur; acceptance would lead to a modified judgment of $842,300, while rejection would mean reversal and remand for a new trial. UPRC was also granted a $111,500 settlement credit.

Seismic Testing DamageWater Well ContaminationCattle LossesBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleDamages SufficiencyRemittiturSettlement Credit
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharpe v. Kilcoyne

Sara Sharpe appealed the trial court's default judgment and denial of her motion for a new trial in Barton Kilcoyne's suit for breach of contract, fraud, and conspiracy to defraud. Sharpe argued lack of notice for the trial setting and satisfaction of the Craddock test for a new trial. The court found Sharpe had constructive notice due to her refusal of mail and failure to update her address. Furthermore, the court determined Sharpe failed the Craddock test's conscious indifference prong, upholding the striking of her pleadings as a valid discovery sanction given her disappearance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, including the award of punitive damages, citing a controlling precedent that allows fraud damages even when actual damages arise from a breach of contract.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialDue ProcessConstructive NoticeConscious IndifferenceDiscovery SanctionsPunitive DamagesBreach of ContractFraudulent InducementAbuse of Discretion
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon

Roy Solomon sued his former employer, Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc., alleging negligence in the collection of his urine specimen during a mandatory drug test, which resulted in a false positive for marijuana. This false result led to his termination and inability to secure subsequent employment as a truck driver. A jury found Mission negligent and awarded Solomon damages for medical care, lost earning capacity, mental anguish, and exemplary damages for malice. On appeal, Mission challenged several aspects, including the existence of a duty, proximate cause, and the recoverability of damages. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mission owed its employees a duty of reasonable care in drug test specimen collection and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of negligence, causation, and malice.

NegligenceDrug ScreeningFalse PositiveEmployment LawDamagesMental AnguishExemplary DamagesDepartment of TransportationSpecimen CollectionEmployer Duty
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2012

Gullo v. Bellhaven Center for Geriatric & Rehabilitative Care, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding an employee, Lenny Gullo, who sued his employer, Bellhaven Center, for damages stemming from a delayed diagnosis of Hepatitis C. Gullo underwent a routine blood test in 2005 which tested positive for the Hepatitis C antibody, but he was only informed of this condition in 2009. Along with his wife and daughter, Gullo commenced an action alleging damages due to the delayed diagnosis caused by the employer's failure to disclose test results. The Supreme Court initially granted Bellhaven's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that the Workers’ Compensation Board holds primary jurisdiction over issues of compensation coverage. The matter was remitted back to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for a new determination following a resolution by the Workers' Compensation Board regarding the parties' rights.

Primary JurisdictionHepatitis CDelayed DiagnosisPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRemittalEmployer LiabilityMedical Test ResultsSuffolk County Supreme Court
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kee

Tan-ja Kee was fired by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in response to filing and settling a workers' compensation claim. Kee sued Wal-Mart for discriminatory firing under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307c, seeking actual and exemplary damages. A jury awarded Kee $4,500 in actual damages and $25,000 in exemplary damages, finding Wal-Mart acted with malice. Wal-Mart appealed, challenging the recoverability of exemplary damages and the sufficiency of evidence for malice. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing precedent that exemplary damages are recoverable and concluding that the jury's finding of malice and the damage award were supported by sufficient evidence and not excessive.

discriminatory firingworkers' compensationexemplary damagesmaliceTexas lawretaliatory dischargeemployee rightsemployer liabilityjury verdictappellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollard v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours, Inc.

This case concerns the determination of compensatory damages and front pay for Plaintiff Sharon Pollard against Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours, Inc. The Court previously found DuPont liable for Title VII discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. After a damages hearing in July 2003, the Court concluded Plaintiff could not return to work due to severe anxiety and depression stemming from harassment and DuPont's insufficient response. The Court awarded Plaintiff $1,004,374.00 in front pay through age 65, determining she had adequately mitigated her damages. Additionally, $950,000.00 in compensatory damages was awarded for emotional distress, with a future hearing scheduled to determine punitive damages.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentCompensatory DamagesFront PayIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMajor Depressive DisorderMitigation of DamagesExpert Witness Testimony
References
16
Case No. 1:06-cv-01137
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2009

Baker v. Windsor Republic Doors

Plaintiff Douglas Baker filed a civil action against Defendant Windsor Republic Doors (WRD) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Tennessee Handicap Act (THA), and Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA), alleging disability discrimination and retaliation. A jury found WRD liable for both claims, awarding Baker back pay and compensatory damages. The Court granted judgment for WRD on the discrimination claim but sustained the retaliation claim. This order addresses the availability of compensatory damages for ADA retaliation claims, an issue with conflicting legal authority among federal courts. The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, concluded that compensatory damages are available for ADA retaliation claims and found that the THRA and THA also provide alternative grounds for sustaining the award. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law regarding compensatory damages was denied, and the jury's $29,500 compensatory award was upheld.

Americans with Disabilities ActADA RetaliationTennessee Handicap ActTennessee Human Rights ActCompensatory DamagesJury AwardStatutory InterpretationDisability DiscriminationCivil RightsEmployment Law
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 4,858 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