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

Payne v. Galen Hospital Corp.

Janis Payne, a hospital nurse, sustained a back injury while working for Galen Hospital and subsequently suffered a severe, permanently disabling reaction to Toradol, a medication prescribed for her injury and filled at the hospital's pharmacy. She received workers' compensation benefits for both the initial injury and the adverse drug reaction. Payne then sued Galen Hospital for negligence and gross negligence in filling the prescription. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Payne's Toradol reaction constituted a work-related injury under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Consequently, her common-law claims against the hospital were barred by the Act's exclusive-remedy provision, as the hospital was deemed to be acting in its capacity as an employer when providing the medication. The court rejected arguments regarding the scope of employment and the dual-capacity doctrine.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy ProvisionDual-Capacity DoctrineWork-Related InjuryMedical MalpracticePharmacy NegligenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityTexas LawStatutory Interpretation
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1996

Isnardi v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

Thomas Isnardi was injured on September 13, 1993, after falling from a scaffold while performing demolition work on premises owned by Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. He sued Genovese and the general contractor, Robbins & Cowan, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate scaffolding. Robbins & Cowan, Inc. then filed a third-party action against Joe Demasco, Isnardi's employer. The Supreme Court granted Isnardi summary judgment on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the plaintiff's motion, as there was a factual dispute regarding whether Isnardi was a recalcitrant worker who refused to use a provided safe "pipe" scaffold, opting instead for an allegedly less stable "Baker" scaffold.

Personal InjuryScaffold FallDemolition WorkRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentLabor LawConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationAppellate Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Commerce Drug Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Peter S. Bernard brought claims against Commerce Drug Company and Del Laboratories, Inc. for trademark violations under the Lanham Act and state law concerning the product 'Arthriticare.' Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on trademark infringement and judgment on the pleadings for fraudulent trademark registration, while plaintiff cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The court found plaintiff's 'Arthriticare' mark to be descriptive and lacking secondary meaning, thus granting defendants' motion for summary judgment on the trademark infringement claim. The claim for fraudulent trademark registration was dismissed as defendants' mark was not registered. All remaining state and common law claims were dismissed due to the absence of federal claims and diversity jurisdiction.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActSummary JudgmentJudgment on PleadingsDescriptive TrademarkSecondary MeaningFraudulent RegistrationPendent JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionUnregistered Mark
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halsey Drug Co. v. Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastics & Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815

Plaintiff Halsey Drug Co., Inc. (Halsey) filed an action against Defendant Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastic and Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815 (Local 815) under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. Halsey sought a declaration from the court regarding the arbitrability of certain issues related to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) after closing its Brooklyn facility and moving some operations to Congers, New York. Local 815 demanded that Halsey apply the CBA to the new Congers facility and offer employment to laid-off Brooklyn employees, subsequently filing for arbitration. Halsey argued that the claims arose after the CBA's expiration and should be handled by the National Labor Relations Board, not arbitration. The court, applying established labor law precedents regarding arbitrability, denied Halsey's motion for summary judgment and granted Local 815's motion, ruling that the dispute is arbitrable because the underlying facts arose before the CBA's expiration and involve contract interpretation.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationUnion RepresentationFederal Declaratory Judgment ActLabor Management Relations ActPost-expiration ClaimsArbitrability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holmes v. Drug Enforcement Administration

Plaintiff Cheryl Holmes sued her employer, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), alleging employment discrimination based on sex and age, retaliation, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge under Title VII and the ADEA. Holmes claimed she was discriminatorily rotated from her Chief of Research and Analysis Section position, reassigned to "menial and degrading jobs," and forced into retirement. The Court granted the DEA's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, finding that Holmes failed to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims, did not establish a prima facie case of gender or age discrimination due to lack of adverse employment action and similarly situated comparators, and failed to prove retaliation or a hostile work environment. The Court also found Holmes did not meet the higher harassment threshold required for constructive discharge.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIAge Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)RetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentConstructive DischargeMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of Remedies
References
77
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Food & Drug Administration

This Memorandum and Order addresses several motions in a case brought by environmental and public interest groups against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The plaintiffs sought to compel the FDA to initiate proceedings to withdraw approval of certain antibiotics used non-therapeutically in livestock. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to strike certain documents, adopted the Government's proposed schedule for complying with a previous order, and denied the Government's motion for a stay pending appeal. The judge found the FDA's decades-long delay in fulfilling its statutory duty to be unreasonable, justifying the imposition of a compliance timetable.

Antibiotic ResistanceAnimal Feed RegulationFDA EnforcementAdministrative Procedure ActFood, Drug, and Cosmetic ActMandamusJudicial ReviewStay Pending AppealSummary JudgmentPublic Health
References
41
Case No. 03-21-00120-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2022

Brian Manley, Chief of Austin Police Department Brian Manley, Individually Commander Mark Spangler, Austin Police Department Lt. Jerry Bauzon, Austin Police Department Officer Benjamin Bloodworth, Austin Police Department Officer Collin Fallon, Austin Police Department Sgt. Eric Kilcollins, Training Coordinator, Austin Police Academy And Officer Shand, Lead Instructor, Stress Reaction Training, Austin Police Academy v. Christopher Wise

Christopher Wise, a former Austin Police Academy cadet, sued Brian Manley (APD Chief) and six other APD officers after sustaining severe injuries, including heat exhaustion and stroke, during a stress reaction training in October 2018. Wise alleged that officers intentionally discouraged cadets from hydrating despite high temperatures and failed to provide timely medical aid. The defendants sought dismissal under the Texas Tort Claims Act's election-of-remedies provisions. The district court dismissed claims against the City of Austin and APD but not against the individual officers. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision, ruling that Wise's claims against the individual officers were based on conduct within the scope of their employment and could have been brought under the TTCA, thus mandating their dismissal.

Texas Tort Claims ActGovernmental ImmunityElection of RemediesScope of EmploymentPolice MisconductCadet InjuryHeat IllnessSupervisor NegligenceAppellate CourtReversal
References
25
Case No. 07-08-0359-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2010

THI of Texas at Lubbock I, LLC, D/B/A Southwest Regional Specialty Hospital Pharmasource Healthcare, Inc. And Omnicare, Inc., D/B/A Pharmasource Healthcare, Inc. v. Mario Perea, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Jacob Perea, Max Perea, Tony Perea, and George Perea

Appellant THI of Texas at Lubbock I, LLC, d/b/a Southwest Regional Specialty Hospital, appeals a jury verdict in a medical malpractice action, seeking wrongful death and survival damages, in favor of Appellees Mario Perea, Max Perea, Tony Perea, and George Perea, and the estate of their deceased father, Jacob Perea. Jacob Perea died after nurses at Southwest Hospital administered two doses of Ativan despite his documented allergy and prior adverse reactions to the drug. The jury found THI and Pharmasource proximately caused the injury and awarded significant damages, including exemplary damages, against THI. This court reverses the trial court's judgment and remands the case for recalculation of damages in accordance with statutory caps.

Medical malpracticeWrongful deathSurvival damagesNegligent credentialingNegligent hiringAtivanDrug allergyRespiratory depressionGross negligenceExemplary damages
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Skinner v. City of Amsterdam

Plaintiff Rick E. Skinner, a former employee of the City of Amsterdam, filed an employment discrimination action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He claimed a hostile work environment, retaliation for filing a complaint with the DOT, adverse employment action, improper drug tests, and improper disclosure of confidential information. The defendant, City of Amsterdam, filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety. The court found that the plaintiff was not disabled under the ADA as he continued illegal drug use, the alleged harassment was not severe enough, and his retaliation claims lacked a causal connection or protected activity. The drug testing and disclosure claims were also dismissed as permissible under the ADA given the context of former substance abuse.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActADASummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationDrug TestingConfidential InformationSubstance AbuseDisability Discrimination
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elgin v. Bryant

This case involves an appeal by the Commissioner of Labor from a Chancery Court decree in Davidson County, where Elgin Drug Store, Inc. recovered unemployment compensation paid under protest. The core dispute centers on whether Mrs. Nancy Y. Elgin, the corporation's uncompensated secretary and sole stock owner, should be counted as an "employee" under the Unemployment Compensation statute. If Mrs. Elgin were considered an employee, the corporation would meet the eight-employee threshold and be subject to the act; otherwise, it would have only seven employees and not be liable. The Court affirmed the Chancellor's decision, ruling that Mrs. Elgin, performing only nominal duties without compensation, was not an employee as defined by the statute. Consequently, the Elgin Drug Store, Inc. was not subject to the act, and the decision to allow interest on the recovered funds was also affirmed, as the employer was compelled to litigate for the refund.

Unemployment CompensationEmployer DefinitionEmployee StatusCorporate OfficerUncompensated ServicesStatutory InterpretationTax RefundInterest on RecoveryAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,222 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