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

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeFORD LBR. CO., INC. v. Roys

Tome Roys, an employee of DeFord Lumber Co., Inc., was discharged after filing a worker’s compensation claim for an on-the-job injury. Roys sued for wrongful termination, alleging a violation of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307c. A jury initially found in favor of Roys, awarding $23,500 in damages, later remitted to $15,570. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding no evidence to support the jury's findings that Roys was discharged solely for filing a worker's compensation claim and that the damages awarded were speculative. The court concluded that Roys failed to meet the burden of proof for both the reason for termination and the extent of damages.

Wrongful terminationWorker's compensationEmployment lawBurden of proofTexas lawAppellate reviewNo evidence ruleDamagesLost wagesJury findings
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Luna v. Daniel International Corp.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment where the appellant (Mr. Luna) sued his former employer (appellee) for wrongful termination. Mr. Luna alleged he was fired for seeking medical treatment for an on-the-job injury, thereby exercising his rights under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act (Art. 8307c). The trial court granted the employer's summary judgment motion, finding no causal link between the discharge and the worker's compensation claim. However, the appellate court found that Mr. Luna's deposition testimony, indicating his foreman's negative attitude towards his doctor's visit, raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding the causal connection. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a trial on the merits.

Wrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentAppealCausal ConnectionDiscriminationEmployment LawOn-the-job InjuryMedical TreatmentBurden of ProofRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carney v. Sabine Contracting Corp.

Danny W. Carney, Sr. appealed a summary judgment that denied his wrongful termination suit against Sabine Contracting Corporation. Carney, initially employed by Hubco, Inc., was asked to complete employment packets for Sabine. He indicated previous workers' compensation benefits but did not submit a supplemental form and was later fired, allegedly due to his workers' compensation claim. Sabine sought summary judgment, arguing Carney was not its employee because his employment was not fully processed. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding that a written employment agreement between Carney and Sabine created a contractual relationship implying Sabine's right of control over Carney's work, thus presenting a genuine issue of material fact regarding his employment status.

Workers' CompensationWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment AppealEmployer-Employee RelationshipRight of ControlContract InterpretationTexas Labor LawAppellate ProcedureMaterial Fact DisputeEmployment Agreement
References
12
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

Dallas County v. Holmes

Glen Holmes sued Dallas County for wrongful termination, alleging retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim and fraud. The jury found in favor of Holmes on the wrongful termination claim. Dallas County appealed, contending insufficient evidence to support the wrongful termination finding and errors in refusing requested jury instructions and questions. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of wrongful termination and that there was no abuse of discretion in the submission of the jury charge.

wrongful terminationretaliationworkers' compensation claimsufficiency of evidencecausal connectionjury instructionsjob abandonmentgood faith claimTexas Labor Codeappellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. the City of Dublin

This case involves an appeal by John David Johnson, the former police chief of the City of Dublin, who was terminated after 19 years of service. Johnson sued the City alleging claims under the Texas Whistleblower Act, breach of contract, and wrongful termination. The trial court initially granted the City's plea to the jurisdiction on the Whistleblower claim, citing Johnson's failure to comply with grievance procedures, and also granted summary judgment on his breach of contract and wrongful termination claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding the Whistleblower Act claim, ruling that Johnson failed to initiate the mandatory grievance procedures, thus depriving the court of jurisdiction. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the wrongful termination claim. The court held that the City Council's "no confidence" vote to terminate Johnson did not comply with TEX. LOC. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.077(b), which requires a two-thirds vote of "elected" aldermen, clarifying that "elected" denotes an irreducible number including a disqualified member's seat. The case was remanded for a trial on the merits for the wrongful termination claim.

Whistleblower ActWrongful TerminationMunicipal LawPublic EmployeeCity CouncilVote RequirementsNepotismGrievance ProceduresStatutory ConstructionJurisdictional Plea
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ebasco Constructors, Inc. v. Rex

John Rex, a craft supervisor at Ebasco Constructors, reported suspicious activities including theft, fraud, and violations of nuclear power plant construction regulations by his supervisor, William Rester. Rex refused to falsify reports and notified superiors about prematurely charged man-hours and uninstalled duct work. Subsequently, Rex was removed from his position and terminated. Rex sued Ebasco for wrongful termination, arguing he was fired for refusing to commit an illegal act. The jury found in favor of Rex, awarding him $150,000. Ebasco appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for the jury's finding and the admission of certain evidence, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Wrongful dischargeRetaliationWhistleblowerEmployment-at-will exceptionCriminal conspiracyFraudFalsification of documentsNuclear power plantRegulatory complianceTexas law
References
14
Case No. 06-01-00129-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2002

Suzanne Chhim v. University of Houston and Tom Wray, Director, Physical Plant

Suzanne Chhim sued the University of Houston (UH) and Tom Wray for wrongful termination and Title VII violations. The trial court granted summary judgment for UH and Wray. On appeal, Chhim abandoned her Title VII claim, which was affirmed. However, regarding the wrongful termination claim under Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 451.001, the appellate court found that Chhim established a causal link between her intent to file a worker's compensation claim and her termination. The court also determined that UH and Wray failed to provide a valid, nondiscriminatory reason for her termination that rebutted the causal connection. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment on the wrongful termination claim and remanded it for further proceedings due to remaining genuine issues of material fact.

Wrongful TerminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ClaimCausal ConnectionPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofTexas Labor CodeEmployment LawAppellate Review
References
28
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,655 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