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

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. 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

Billings v. County of St. Lawrence

The petitioner, an unnamed Deputy Sheriff and correction officer for the St. Lawrence County Sheriff’s Department, was terminated after a disciplinary hearing. He was found guilty of unprofessional conduct for inappropriately delivering tobacco to an inmate and for lying during the subsequent investigation, though not for causing an inmate disturbance. Despite a Hearing Officer's recommendation for a two-month suspension, the Undersheriff of St. Lawrence County opted for termination, effective April 22, 1987. The court, in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, confirmed the determination, finding the evidence sufficient and the termination penalty not excessive given the serious nature of the misconduct in a prison setting and the petitioner's relatively short, unblemished service record.

MisconductTerminationDeputy SheriffCorrection OfficerInmate ConductDisciplinary ActionSubstantial EvidencePenalty ReviewUnprofessional ConductLack of Candor
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hafeman v. PROTEIN DISCOVERY, INC.

Dean G. Hafemen sued Protein Discovery, Inc. for breach of an employment contract after his termination, arguing he was owed severance benefits for a "Termination Without Cause". The trial court sided with the employer, ruling the termination was "For Cause". On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision. The appellate court found the employer failed to demonstrate a "material adverse effect" on the company from Hafemen's actions, and also determined that the termination notice provided by the employer was contractually deficient. Consequently, the court held that Hafemen's termination did not meet the contractual definition of "Termination For Cause."

Breach of ContractEmployment TerminationSeverance BenefitsMaterial Adverse EffectContractual ObligationsAppellate ReviewNotice ProvisionFor Cause TerminationWithout Cause TerminationTennessee Law
References
3
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

In the Interest of R.R. & S.J.S.

Ambrea Rodgers appealed the termination of her parental rights to her children, R.R. and S. J.S., after a default judgment was entered against her while she was incarcerated. Rodgers was jailed for forgery, fraud, and drug possession when CPS took custody of her children. Despite receiving amended petitions, Rodgers did not file an answer, believing no action on her part was necessary and an attorney would be automatically appointed. After her parental rights were terminated, an attorney was appointed who filed a motion for new trial, which was denied by the trial court and affirmed by the court of appeals. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the motion for new trial for abuse of discretion, applying the three Craddock elements. The Court found Rodgers satisfied all three requirements: her failure to answer was not intentional or due to conscious indifference, she presented a meritorious defense, and granting a new trial would not cause injury or delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Parental Rights TerminationDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionCraddock ElementsConscious IndifferenceMeritorious DefenseBest Interest of the ChildFamily LawTexas Supreme Court
References
14
Case No. 2015-06-0332
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2015

Jones, Cedric v. Crencor Leasing & Sales

The employee, Cedric Jones, sustained a left shoulder injury at work when a ladder fell. His employer, Crencor Leasing and Sales, provided medical benefits but contested temporary disability payments, asserting Jones was terminated for cause. Jones claimed his dismissal was a pretext for absences related to his injury and that suitable light-duty work was not provided. The trial court upheld the termination for cause but found the employer could not accommodate Jones's medical restrictions, leading to an award of temporary disability. On appeal, the Appeals Board affirmed the termination for cause finding, but reversed the determination that the employer could not provide accommodations, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationTermination for CauseTemporary Disability BenefitsWork RestrictionsPretextAccommodationsShoulder InjuryMedical TreatmentEmployee MisconductTimecard Fraud
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keith v. New York State Thruway Authority

Petitioner, an assistant division engineer, was terminated by respondent for misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from a scheme to deceive toll collectors into believing asbestos removal had begun prematurely at the Newburgh toll station, causing panic and union threats. This followed an earlier reprimand for failing to take safety precautions during an asbestos exposure incident at the New Paltz station. Following a hearing, the Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty of misconduct, leading to his dismissal on June 21, 1985. This CPLR article 78 proceeding was initiated to review the termination, with the court ultimately confirming the determination and dismissing the petition.

Employee misconductWorkplace safetyAsbestos exposureCPLR Article 78Termination of employmentDue processJudicial reviewAdministrative determinationCivil Service LawSupervisory responsibility
References
8
Case No. Cause No. 12-92-00401-CV; Cause No. 12-92-00400-CV; Cause No. 12-92-00386-CV
Regular Panel Decision

White v. Blake

The Relator, James Ronnie White, filed three original mandamus proceedings against Judge Blake concerning child custody and parental rights over his daughter, K_B_W_. The case originated from a 1983 Alabama divorce, with subsequent modifications and allegations of child abuse that Alabama courts found groundless. After the child's mother moved K_B_W_ to Texas, White challenged a Texas protective order, the denial of his habeas corpus application for possession of the child, and the refusal to dismiss a petition to terminate his parental rights. The appellate court denied mandamus relief for the protective order and the denial of habeas corpus (due to lack of record on emergency grounds) but conditionally granted relief regarding attorney's fees awarded in the habeas matter. Crucially, the court conditionally granted mandamus relief to dismiss the termination petition, holding that the Texas court abused its discretion by not adhering to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) and Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) requirements for deferring jurisdiction to Alabama, which continued to exercise jurisdiction.

MandamusChild CustodyParental Rights TerminationJurisdiction DisputeUCCJAPKPAInterstate CustodyHabeas CorpusProtective OrderAttorney Fees
References
19
Case No. 2014-06-0054
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2015

Dunlap, Tanya Louise Scott v. Elwood Staffing

The case involves an expedited hearing to determine if Elwood Staffing was obligated to provide temporary disability benefits to Tanya Louise Scott Dunlap. Ms. Dunlap sustained a work-related injury, and while Elwood Staffing accepted the claim as compensable, they terminated her for cause due to insubordination and using foul language towards a co-worker, a violation of company policy. Ms. Dunlap sought benefits, contending wrongful discharge and that she would have performed light duty. The Court denied her claim, concluding that she was properly terminated for cause and that Elwood Staffing had available modified duty work to accommodate her restrictions, thus her injury was not the reason for her inability to work. The decision emphasized that employers can enforce workplace rules without penalty in workers' compensation cases when termination is for cause and modified duty was available.

Temporary Disability BenefitsTermination for CauseEmployee MisconductFoul Language PolicyInsubordinationLight Duty WorkMedical RestrictionsMaximum Medical ImprovementCredibility ImpeachmentWorkers' Compensation Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 9,630 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