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. 15-CV-681-LY
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2017

Markman v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.

This is a securities-fraud class action brought by the Lead Plaintiff, Employees’ Retirement System of the State of Hawaii, against Whole Foods Market, Inc. and its executives. The plaintiff alleged violations of federal securities laws, specifically Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, claiming Whole Foods made false and misleading statements about its pricing and financial performance due to systematic overcharging. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, arguing the plaintiff failed to adequately plead material misrepresentation, scienter (wrongful state of mind), and loss causation. The court found that the new allegations did not remedy the deficiencies of the previous complaint, specifically lacking particularity for false statements, a strong inference of scienter for the defendants, and a plausible link for loss causation. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the second amended complaint with prejudice, concluding that further amendments would be futile.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissWhole Foods MarketFinancial MisrepresentationOverchargingPleading StandardsScienterLoss CausationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Case No. 2016-01-0139
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2023

Brown, Binnie v, Whole Foods Markets, Inc.

Bonnie Brown, an employee of Whole Foods, sought psychiatric evaluation for impairment and ongoing treatment for a mental injury allegedly stemming from a 2015 spinal injury. Whole Foods opposed, arguing a lack of authorized referral and unproven work-relatedness of the mental injury. The Court acknowledged the problem of obtaining mental impairment assessments when only non-physician providers (psychologists) have been authorized, citing Tennessee law that limits impairment ratings to physicians. Consequently, the Court found no mechanism to compel Whole Foods to provide a psychiatrist panel solely for impairment assessment. However, based on Ms. Brown's credible testimony and corroborating medical records, the Court ruled that she would likely prevail in establishing her need for ongoing psychological care. The Court ordered Whole Foods to authorize Ms. Brown to return to Dr. Henriksen or provide a panel of psychologists/psychiatrists for assessment of her need for ongoing care and/or referral.

Mental injuryWorkers' CompensationPsychological evaluationChronic painDepressionAnxietyCausationImpairment ratingPsychiatric referralAuthorized treatment
References
4
Case No. 04-22-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Champion Food Service, Inc. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. (Cross-Appellee) v. ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C. (Cross-Appellant)

Champion Food Service, Inc. and Champion Food Service 2, Inc. (Champion) appealed a final judgment in favor of ProAlamo Foods, L.L.C. and ProCoastal, L.L.C. (Pro Parties) after a jury trial. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order awarding additional post-verdict attorneys' fees to the Pro Parties, finding the re-opening of evidence impermissible. However, the court affirmed the judgment for the Pro Parties on their quantum meruit claim, including attorneys' fees (excluding the reversed post-verdict award). Champion's claims for DTPA violations and breach of implied warranty were denied due to insufficient evidence. The court upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings regarding frozen meat products and text messages.

Quantum MeruitAttorneys' FeesDirected VerdictBreach of ContractImplied WarrantyDTPAAppellate ReviewJury VerdictPost-Verdict FeesFood Distribution
References
48
Case No. 2024-30-5862
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2026

Laymance , Glenda v K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., dba Food City

This case involves an appeal by K-VA-T Food Stores, Inc., d/b/a Food City (Employer) from a trial court's order requiring payment of additional temporary total disability (TTD) benefits to Glenda Laymance (Employee). The Employee suffered a right shoulder injury and was initially placed at maximum medical improvement (MMI) by her authorized physician, Dr. Aaron Roberts. However, her condition worsened, leading to objective testing revealing a need for additional treatment, including surgery for severe post-traumatic osteoarthritis. Dr. Roberts subsequently rescinded his MMI determination. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the Employee had met her burden of proving entitlement to additional TTD benefits due to the physician's retraction of the MMI and the causal connection between the original injury and the new condition, and remanded the case.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityMaximum Medical ImprovementShoulder InjuryPost-traumatic OsteoarthritisSurgeryPhysician OpinionRescission of MMIExpedited HearingAppeals Board
References
8
Case No. 2016-01-0139
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2016

Brown, Bonnie v. Whole Foods Markets, Inc.

Employee Bonnie Brown filed a Petition for Benefit Determination (PBD) alleging a compensable spinal injury sustained on July 22, 2015, in the course and scope of her employment as a food preparer for Whole Foods Markets, Inc. The disputed issues included the employer's failure to provide a proper panel of back specialists/neurosurgeons and to provide requested discovery documents. Ms. Brown subsequently filed a Request for Expedited Hearing, seeking to resolve these discovery issues based on a review of the file without an evidentiary hearing. However, the Workers' Compensation Judge, Thomas Wyatt, denied the expedited hearing request. The Court determined that Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law, specifically Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-239, does not permit discovery disputes to be addressed through an expedited hearing. Instead, discovery disputes must be adjudicated upon the review of written motions and affidavits, and Ms. Brown was advised to utilize standard discovery procedures and potentially file a motion to compel if necessary. A Status Conference was set for June 7, 2016.

Expedited Hearing RequestDiscovery DisputesWorkers' Compensation LawSpinal InjuryPetition for Benefit DeterminationDenial of RequestProcedural RulesStatus ConferenceAppeals BoardTennessee Law
References
2
Case No. 2021-07-0312
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2024

Cable, Craig v. Conagra Foods Packaged Foods Co., Inc.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's denial of the employer's motion for partial summary judgment. The employee, Craig Cable, sought benefits for a right shoulder injury sustained while working for Conagra Foods. The employer argued the employee failed to meet expert disclosure deadlines and lacked proof of permanent medical impairment. The trial court permitted the employee to depose his treating physician, Dr. Smith, who testified to a work-related injury but no permanent impairment. The Appeals Board found the employer failed to comply with procedural rules by not filing an amended statement of undisputed facts and not establishing the employee reached maximum medical improvement for all conditions, thus failing to shift the burden of proof.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentExpert WitnessPermanent Medical ImpairmentMaximum Medical ImprovementProcedural RulesInterlocutory AppealShoulder InjuryCervical Spine InjuryMedical Testimony
References
7
Case No. 2020-08-0198
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2020

Gray, Katie v. Conagra Foods Packaged Foods Co., Inc.

The case involves an employee, Katie Gray, who suffered a work-related hand injury and was diagnosed with complex regional pain syndrome. After her authorized treating physician, Dr. Dan Fletcher, assigned a 13% permanent medical impairment rating based on a therapist's report using the range-of-motion model, her employer, Conagra Foods, retained Dr. David West for a medical records review. Dr. West disagreed with the methodology, concluding a 4% impairment rating for complex regional pain syndrome. Due to this discrepancy, the employer requested an evaluation through the Medical Impairment Rating Registry (MIRR), which the employee moved to quash, arguing that a medical records review was an insufficient basis for a dispute. The trial court denied the motion, and the Appeals Board affirmed, holding that the statute and regulations allow either party to obtain a second opinion, even based on a medical records review, to establish a dispute for an MIRR evaluation.

Workers' CompensationMedical Impairment Rating Registry (MIRR)Permanent Medical ImpairmentComplex Regional Pain SyndromeMedical Records ReviewSecond Medical OpinionDispute ResolutionAppeals Board DecisionTennessee LawTrial Court Affirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hargraves v. Armco Foods, Inc.

Leslie B. Hargraves appealed a summary judgment granted to Armco Foods, Inc., d/b/a Food-land, in a personal injury lawsuit. Hargraves filed suit for damages from a 1991 accident, but her filing on July 7, 1993, was one day past the two-year statute of limitations. She argued that a temporary, drug-induced mental impairment after the accident, which made her "groggy and disoriented" for two days, should toll the limitations period under the "unsound mind" provision of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 16.001(a)(2). The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that such minor, drug-induced conditions do not qualify as "unsound mind" sufficient to toll the statute, especially given her ability to work and file a worker's compensation claim during the two-year period. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Statute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionUnsound MindPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionTexas LawMental IncapacityDrug-Induced ImpairmentLegal Disability
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suarez v. Food Emporium, Inc.

Plaintiff, a job coach for Casita Unida Clubhouse, was injured after slipping on a wet floor while filling in for a transitional employee at defendant Food Emporium. Although he received workers' compensation benefits, plaintiff also commenced a personal injury action against Food Emporium. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was barred because plaintiff was a 'special employee' of Food Emporium. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion, but the appellate court reversed. The court determined, as a matter of law, that plaintiff was a special employee due to Food Emporium's control over his work, thus dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarPersonal InjuryControl and DirectionAppellate ReviewDeli DepartmentJob CoachEmployer LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
4
Case No. No. 03A01-9905-CV-00180
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2001

Lett v. Collis Foods, Inc.

JoAnne Lett sued Collis Foods, Inc. and Waffle House, Inc. after being seriously injured in a collision with an intoxicated employee, Lynda Mills. Mills reported to work at Waffle House already intoxicated and, despite attempts by management to sober her up or arrange a ride, she refused and drove herself home. On her way home, she caused the accident. Lett argued that Collis Foods owed a duty of reasonable care to prevent Mills from driving. The trial court granted summary judgment for Collis Foods, which Lett appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that Collis Foods did not owe a duty to Lett under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 315, 319, or 324A, as the employer did not contribute to Mills' intoxication, did not force her to drive, and lacked the legal right to restrain her.

Employer LiabilityDuty of CareIntoxicated EmployeeSummary JudgmentNegligenceThird-Party LiabilityOff-Duty EmployeeOff-Premises AccidentRestatement of TortsForeseeability of Harm
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 826 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