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
Aug 19, 2011

Evans v. Walgreen Co.

This case involves Plaintiff Chandra Evans' claims against Defendant Walgreen Company following the termination of her employment, and Walgreens' counterclaim for breach of contract related to incentive payments. Evans alleged discrimination based on race and sex, hostile work environment, retaliation, various contract breaches, misrepresentation, defamation, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Walgreens moved for summary judgment on all Evans' claims and its own counterclaim, while Evans moved for summary judgment on Walgreens' counterclaim. The court granted Walgreens' motion for summary judgment on all of Evans' claims, finding insufficient evidence for discrimination, retaliation, or contract breaches given her admitted misconduct and at-will employment status. However, both Walgreens' and Evans' motions for summary judgment on the breach of contract counterclaim were denied due to a disputed material fact regarding the existence of a bonus repayment agreement.

Employment LawSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentBreach of ContractAt-Will EmploymentMisrepresentationDefamation
References
145
Case No. E2010-00244-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2010

Joy C. Lindsey v. Walgreen Company

Joy C. Lindsey sued Walgreen Company, Robert Cortney, and Kane David Stackhouse after David Z. Lindsey, Sr. was fatally shot by Stackhouse in a Walgreen's parking lot. Walgreen and Cortney sought to amend their answer to include a cross-claim for indemnification against Stackhouse, but the Trial Court denied their motion. On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals considered whether leave to amend should have been granted. The appellate court found no undue delay, lack of notice, bad faith, or undue prejudice to the plaintiff, and determined the amendment was not futile given the applicability of joint and several liability. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court's decision, allowing Walgreen and Cortney to assert their cross-claim against Stackhouse.

Interlocutory AppealCross-claimMotion to AmendIndemnificationComparative FaultJoint and Several LiabilityProcedural LawAbuse of DiscretionForeseeable Intentional ConductNegligence
References
15
Case No. W2009-02235-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2010

Jane Doe and John Doe v. Walgreens Company

Jane Doe, an HIV-positive Walgreens employee and customer, had her confidential medical information accessed and disclosed by co-workers. She and her fiancé sued Walgreens, the co-worker, and her supervisor for multiple torts, including invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court dismissed the case, citing the Workers' Compensation Act as the exclusive remedy. The Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, holding that the alleged injuries did not arise out of Ms. Doe's employment and that the defendants' deliberate acts, inferred to be with intent to injure, constituted an exception to workers' compensation exclusivity. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

HIV Status DisclosurePrivacy ViolationWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional TortGross NegligenceLoss of ConsortiumEmotional DistressConstructive DischargePatient ConfidentialityEmployee Misconduct
References
37
Case No. 03-09-00068-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2010

Brenda Williams v. Walgreen Co. and Warren W. Gude, M.D.

Brenda Williams appealed pro se from a trial court's judgment in favor of Walgreen Co. and Warren W. Gude, M.D., in a health care liability case. Williams challenged a mediated settlement agreement and her attorneys' conduct, including allegations of misconduct, misrepresentation, and lack of zealous representation. The claims against Gude were nonsuited based on a summary judgment, and claims against Walgreen Co. were dismissed after a settlement payment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in denying Williams's motion to sanction her attorneys and no error in enforcing the mediated settlement agreement, noting that Williams failed to raise certain issues with the trial court.

Health care liabilityMediated settlement agreementBreach of contractSummary judgmentAttorney conductProfessional responsibilityAppellate reviewTrial court judgmentTexas lawCivil procedure
References
9
Case No. 03-03-00704-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2005

Texas Mutual Insurance Company// Eckerd Corporation H.E. Butt Grocery Company Third-Party Solutions, Inc. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Apollo Enterprises, Inc. And Walgreen Company v. Eckerd Corporation H.E. Butt Grocery Company Third-Party Solutions, Inc. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Apollo Enterprises, Inc. And Walgreen Company//Cross-Appellee,Texas Mutual Insurance Company

This case involves cross-appeals concerning whether an insurance company must first exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act before filing a lawsuit for alleged overcharges by health care providers. Appellant Texas Mutual Insurance Company sued several pharmacies and billing companies for negligent misrepresentation and money had and received, claiming they over-billed for prescription drugs. The district court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction but granted partial summary judgment against Texas Mutual. The Court of Appeals, relying on prior precedent, determined that the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission holds exclusive jurisdiction over medical fee disputes within the Act's pervasive regulatory scheme. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction as Texas Mutual had not exhausted its administrative remedies.

Workers' Compensation ActAdministrative RemediesExclusive JurisdictionMedical Fee DisputesPharmaceutical Fee GuidelineOverbillingNegligent MisrepresentationMoney Had and ReceivedStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 2016-03-0261
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2016

Gunnels, Jewell v. Walgreens Co.

Jewel Gunnels, an employee of Walgreens, filed an Expedited Hearing Request after falling and breaking her hip at work on February 22, 2016, while preparing to clock out. The central issue was whether her injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment. Walgreens' motion to dismiss for procedural and substantive deficiencies was denied by the court. Ms. Gunnels argued her fall was due to a slick floor and distraction, which she claimed were employment hazards. However, the court found insufficient evidence to prove the fall arose from an employment hazard, concluding that talking while walking on a clear floor is not peculiar to her employment, and therefore denied her claim at this time.

Workplace InjuryFall AccidentIdiopathic FallEmployment HazardWorkers' Compensation ClaimExpedited HearingBurden of ProofMotion to DismissCausationScope of Employment
References
9
Case No. ADJ6526755; ADJ6526979 ADJ6671938; ADJ6672994
Regular
Jul 13, 2015

Diane Nye vs. WALGREENS COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Walgreens' petition for reconsideration of four findings and awards issued to applicant Diane Nye. Walgreens challenged the awards, claiming a May 14, 2004 psychiatric injury was nonindustrial, the combined permanent disability exceeded 100%, further apportionment was needed for obesity, smoking, and a subsequent nonindustrial injury, and Nye's occupation was misclassified. The Board found substantial evidence supported the WCJ's findings, including industrial psychiatric injury and appropriate apportionment based on AME opinions. The Board also affirmed the dual occupation classification and resulting permanent disability rating, as Nye's stock clerk duties were an integral part of her employment.

Petition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsycheHypertensionGastric SystemPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorApportionmentObesitySmoking
References
9
Case No. 2021-05-0320
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2022

Wilhelm, Andrea v. Walgreen Co.

Andrea Wilhelm injured her left knee at work in August 2019, leading to a meniscal tear and subsequent knee replacement surgery. Walgreen Co., her employer, initially denied the knee replacement as not medically necessary, citing a lack of jurisdiction and timely filing, and arguing her pre-existing arthritis was the primary cause. The Court found it had jurisdiction, ruling that Ms. Wilhelm was entitled to benefits. The Court also determined that the work injury was the primary cause of her need for knee replacement, crediting Dr. Scott McCall's testimony over Dr. William Gavigan's record review. Consequently, the Court granted Ms. Wilhelm permanent partial disability benefits and ordered Walgreen to cover all related medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryMeniscal TearKnee ReplacementMedical NecessityCausationJurisdictionUtilization ReviewPermanent Partial DisabilityPre-existing Condition
References
10
Case No. ADJ6760744
Regular
Mar 01, 2011

HAMID KHOSRAVAN vs. WALGREEN'S, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed an award of temporary disability to the applicant, Hamid Khosravan, against Walgreen's. The board found Walgreen's failed to provide proper and timely notice of its Medical Provider Network (MPN), entitling the applicant to select his own treating physician. However, the temporary disability award was amended to exclude a 3.5-month period when the applicant was on vacation abroad.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMedical Provider NetworkMPN notice requirementsTemporary disabilityIndustrial injurySelf-procure medical treatmentLabor Code section 4600Labor Code section 46168 Cal. Code Regs. § 9767.12Findings Award and Order
References
2
Case No. ADJ4198635
Regular
Aug 20, 2009

ANGELIQUE LARSON vs. WALGREENS, Permissibly Self-Insured, adjusted by SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Walgreens' petition for reconsideration regarding Angelique Larson's industrial injury. Walgreens argued the administrative law judge exceeded her authority by not allowing a further deposition of Dr. Tacheff and that his opinion lacked substantial evidence. The Board found Dr. Tacheff's opinion on the applicant's TMJ and dental injury, caused by a fall as a retail clerk, to be substantial medical evidence. The Board affirmed that adequate discovery occurred and that medical treatment is not apportionable, thus the need for future TMJ treatment was established.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryTMJ-dentalWalgreensSedgwick CMSPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardOrder
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 39 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