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

Hall v. Environmental Chemical Corp.

Plaintiff Hall originally sued Defendant Environmental Chemical Corp. for personal injuries under the Jones Act and general maritime law, which were dismissed via summary judgment. Plaintiff then moved to alter judgment, amend the complaint to include LHWCA Section 905(b) and negligence claims, and for a new trial. The Court denied relief under LHWCA Section 905(b), ruling the craft was not a vessel for such purposes, and also denied the motion for a new trial. However, the Court granted leave for Plaintiff to amend the complaint to pursue a general negligence claim, converting the final judgment into a partial summary judgment. Defendant's motion for sanctions was denied.

Jones ActGeneral Maritime LawLHWCA Section 905(b)Vessel DefinitionSummary JudgmentMotion to Alter JudgmentMotion for Leave to AmendMotion for New TrialMotion for SanctionsNegligence Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New Breed Logistics

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued New Breed Logistics, alleging sexual harassment by supervisor James Calhoun against Jaquelyn Hines, Capricius Pearson, and Tiffany Pete, and retaliation against them and Christopher Partee under Title VII. Following a jury verdict against New Breed, the company moved for a new trial, to amend judgment, and for judgment as a matter of law, citing errors in jury instructions and insufficient evidence. The court denied New Breed's motion for a new trial, and partially granted and denied its motions to amend judgment and for judgment as a matter of law. Notably, Partee's punitive damages were reduced due to a statutory cap, and the court addressed the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions in Vance and Nassar on supervisor liability and causation standards. The court ultimately found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on harassment, retaliation, and punitive damages, and affirmed the jury instructions.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIJury InstructionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew Trial MotionAmend Judgment MotionPunitive DamagesEmployer LiabilityCausation Standard
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eddie C. Pratcher, Jr. v. Methodist Healthcare Memphis Hospitals

This is a dissenting opinion regarding a trial court's decision to deny a defendant's (Consultants in Anesthesia, Inc.) motion to amend its answer to include a statute of repose defense, even after a new trial had been granted. The dissenting judge, WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, especially given the liberal policy favoring amendments under Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 15.01. The judge contends that the defendant's delay in asserting the defense was not undue, citing changes in procedural rules and the lack of prejudice to the plaintiff, Ms. Pratcher. He emphasizes that justice requires equal liberality for defendants to amend their answers to add meritorious defenses.

Dissenting OpinionStatute of ReposeMotion to AmendPleading AmendmentsAffirmative DefenseAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court DiscretionWaiver DefenseProcedural RulesCivil Procedure
References
11
Case No. NO. 14-19-00427-CV (Trial Court Cause No. 2018-85465)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2021

Houston Professional Firefighters' Association IAFF Local 341, Patrick Marty Lancton, Gabriel Angel Dominguez, Roy Anthony Cormier, Brian Ray Wilcox, and Delance Shaw v. Houston Police Officers' Union City of Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, Council Members Amy Peck, Tarsha Jackson, Abbie Kamin, Carolyn Evans-Shabazz, Dave Martin, Tiffany D. Thomas. Greg Travis, Karla Cisneros, Robert Gallegos, Edward Pollard, Martha Castex-Tatum, Mike Knox, David Robinson, Michael Kubosh, Letitia Plummer, and Sallie Alcorn Controller Chris Brown And Finance Department Director Tantri Emo

The Houston Professional Fire Fighters Association (HPFFA) and individual firefighters appealed a trial court's judgment that deemed a voter-approved pay-parity amendment, designed to equalize firefighters' and police officers' compensation, preempted by state law. The appellate court examined whether the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act (FPERA) and the Texas Constitution unequivocally intended to preempt local ordinances establishing compensation standards. The court concluded that the FPERA does not express with "unmistakable clarity" an intent to preempt the pay-parity amendment, as a reasonable construction allows both the FPERA's standards and the amendment's minimum compensation standard to coexist. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding preemption and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court also denied the firefighters' requests for a writ of mandamus as premature and for severance of their counterclaims, finding them interwoven with the main issues.

Public Safety PayFirefighter CompensationPolice CompensationTexas Preemption DoctrineCollective Bargaining RightsMunicipal Charter AmendmentHome Rule AuthorityStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment Reversal
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Krisher v. Xerox Corp.

This lawsuit involves a plaintiff, Lisa Krisher, whose long-term disability benefits were denied by Health International, the Medical Case Manager for Xerox’s Long-Term Disability Income Plan. The court considered the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Motion for New Trial and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff's motion for new trial was denied because the new evidence presented was deemed conclusory. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on various grounds, including upholding Health International's decision to deny benefits as not an abuse of discretion, finding proper COBRA notice was given, and concluding there was no discriminatory intent in the Plaintiff's employment termination under ERISA § 510. Claims related to pre-certification, improper plan amendment, and benefit offsets were waived due to omission from the pretrial order. Overall, the court found the defendants' actions were consistent with plan terms and legal requirements.

ERISALong-Term Disability BenefitsSummary JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of Discretion StandardFiduciary DutyCOBRAEmployment TerminationMedical EvidenceDisability Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2001

Dutton v. Charles Pankow Builders, Ltd.

This case involved an amended judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning personal injury damages awarded to two construction workers. The judgment apportioned liability 20% against the general contractor and 80% against the subcontractor/employer. The court reviewed post-trial motions from the subcontractor to dismiss a contractual indemnification claim by the general contractor and motions from both parties to set aside future lost earnings awards as excessive. The court unanimously affirmed the amended judgment, finding the indemnification clause enforceable as it allowed for partial, not full, indemnification. The apportionment of liability was also upheld, supported by evidence of negligence from both the general contractor and the subcontractor. Additionally, the court found the awards for future lost earnings, including evidence of reasonably certain wage increases and application of CPLR 5041 (e) adjustment, to be proper.

Construction injuryPersonal injury damagesContractual indemnificationLiability apportionmentLost earnings awardGeneral contractor negligenceSubcontractor negligenceIndemnification clause enforceabilityStatutory interpretationAppellate review
References
4
Case No. 2015-06-1358
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2017

Watson, Reginald v. Labor Smart, Inc.

The employee, Reginald L. Watson, suffered injuries after falling from a truck, leading to an award of temporary disability benefits by the trial court. The employer, Labor Smart, Inc., appealed this decision. Subsequently, the employee filed a motion to alter or amend the trial court's order. The trial court, after confirming its retained jurisdiction, rescinded its initial order and issued an amended one, again awarding temporary disability benefits and addressing other issues. The employer filed a second notice of appeal, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the disability benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the trial court properly retained jurisdiction to rule on the motion to alter or amend and that the evidence supported the award of temporary disability benefits. The case was remanded for any further necessary proceedings.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsJurisdictionMotion to Alter or AmendAppellate ProcedureCredibility FindingCausal ConnectionMedical OpinionHead InjuryBack Pain
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henderson v. Bush Bros. & Co.

Cecil Henderson filed a workers' compensation claim against Bush Brother & Company in 1987, alleging total disability due to noxious fumes. His initial counsel withdrew, and new counsel, Milligan and Gilbert, took over. The plaintiff sought to amend his complaint to change the cause of injury from noxious fumes to heavy lifting. The trial judge granted summary judgment for the defendant in 1992, dismissing the case without considering the motion to amend, citing the statute of limitations. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel found that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment before considering the motion to amend, citing liberal amendment policies under T.R.C.P. 15.01 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a). Consequently, the panel vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to allow the amendment and then reconsider the summary judgment motion.

Workers' CompensationAppealSummary JudgmentMotion to AmendRule 15.01Abuse of DiscretionStatute of LimitationsRemandProcedural LawPleading Amendment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tucker v. American Telephone & Telegraph Corp.

This product liability case involves a motion for a new trial filed by the plaintiffs after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant. The central issue is the admissibility of testimony from Dr. Wallace Dixon Ward, an experimental psychologist and physicist, concerning medical causation of hearing loss. Plaintiffs argued that Dr. Ward was not competent to testify under Tennessee law, which generally requires expert medical proof for such issues. The court, however, found that Tennessee law, as interpreted through various case precedents, does not strictly limit expert testimony on causation to medical doctors, especially when the expertise falls within a scientific field like physics concerning the effects of noise on hearing. The court concluded that Dr. Ward was well-qualified to offer his opinion and denied the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.

Product LiabilityExpert Witness CompetencyCausationHearing LossAcoustic TraumaFederal Rules of EvidenceTennessee LawExperimental PsychologyPhysicsNoise Exposure
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. DASS, INC.

The case concerns an appeal by Benjie Smith d/b/a Oak Cliff Metals (Appellant) against DASS, Inc. (Appellee) after a dispute over a real property purchase agreement. Smith sought specific performance or a declaratory judgment for equitable title, alleging the trial court erred in denying these remedies despite the jury finding a breach of contract and awarding damages. The appellate court denied Smith's amended motion for rehearing, concluding that Smith failed to prove full compliance with the contract, specifically regarding obligations to work out title details with the EPA, and his readiness to perform. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court ’s judgment denying specific performance and equitable title.

Contract DisputeReal PropertySpecific PerformanceEquitable TitleBreach of ContractDamagesJury FindingsAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureBurden of Proof
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 18,016 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