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

Locke v. Bralley

William T. Locke, a minor, filed suit through his mother against Sheriff W. G. Bralley and his surety, Globe Indemnity Company, seeking damages for personal injuries. Locke was shot in the hand, leading to its amputation, while fleeing an illicit still during an attempted arrest by law enforcement officers from Wichita and Archer counties. The plaintiff alleged excessive force was used, resulting in his severe injury and loss of earning capacity. A jury trial denied relief, finding Locke was operating a still, the shot was fired by Deputy Kinkaid without intent to kill, and no excessive force was used by Bralley or his deputies. Despite the jury's finding of no damages, which was noted as contrary to undisputed facts, the judgment was affirmed on appeal, upholding the jury's findings regarding the lawfulness of the arrest and the force employed.

ArrestExcessive ForceFelonyIllicit StillJury FindingsDamagesAmputationSheriff LiabilitySurety BondCriminal Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Locke v. ST. AUGUSTINE'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Kenneth Locke sued St. Augustine’s Episcopal Church and Reverend Canon Howard K. Williams under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) for unpaid wages and overtime. The defendants moved for summary judgment, which the Court granted, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court determined that St. Augustine's did not qualify for FLSA enterprise coverage due to insufficient commercial income, and Locke did not meet the criteria for individual coverage as his work lacked sufficient interstate commerce activity. Consequently, the state law claims under the NYLL were dismissed without prejudice as the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawSummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionEnterprise CoverageIndividual CoverageNonprofit ExemptionReligious OrganizationWage and Hour DisputeUnpaid Wages
References
33
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00941 [202 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Locke v. URS Architecture & Eng'g-N.Y., P.C.

Plaintiff Michael Locke sustained injuries after slipping on soapy water in a designated restroom at a construction site managed by URS. Locke had repeatedly notified URS of an overflowing sink causing water to pool, but URS attributed responsibility to prime general contractor Tri-Rail. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs on common-law negligence and Labor Law claims against URS, while denying URS's motion to dismiss and for contractual indemnification against Tri-Rail, and denying Crescent's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Crescent and granting URS conditional contractual indemnification against Tri-Rail, pending liability apportionment. The court found URS liable under Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200 due to its control over the injury-producing activity and notice of the dangerous condition.

Workers' CompensationConstruction Site AccidentSlip and FallPremises LiabilityLabor Law §200Labor Law §241(6)Industrial Code ViolationSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law Negligence
References
9
Case No. 03-11-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2014

State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel Steering Committee of Cities Served by Oncor// State of Texas' Agencies and Institutions of Higher Learning Steering Committee

This case is an administrative appeal concerning a final order from the Public Utility Commission (PUC) that increased rates for Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, reviewed the district court's judgment on various regulatory and financial issues. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment on eight of twelve issues but reversed and remanded four issues back to the Commission for further proceedings. These reversed issues included the university discount, municipal franchise-fee expenses, the calculation of 'lead days' for the franchise-tax component of cash working capital, and the federal income-tax expense. The court's decision hinged on statutory interpretation and the application of regulatory standards in the context of utility ratemaking.

Electric Utility RegulationRate IncreaseAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Public Utility CommissionOncor Electric Delivery CompanyState Universities DiscountFranchise TaxFederal Income Tax ExpenseAutomated Metering Systems
References
110
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel

Plaintiff Augustine Fernandez filed a lawsuit in New York State Court following an automobile collision, seeking one million dollars in damages. He named Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel, John Doe, JBN Transport, and Dan Schantz Farm & Greenhouses as defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. Fernandez moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the removal was untimely and the amount in controversy was insufficient. The court, applying the "last-served defendant rule," determined the removal was timely as the last defendant received the summons on April 23, 2004, and the removal petition was filed within 30 days. The court also accepted Fernandez's stated damages of $1 million for diversity jurisdiction purposes, rejecting his attempt to disclaim it. Consequently, Fernandez’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied.

Diversity JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMotion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalLast-Served Defendant RuleAmount in ControversyService of ProcessStatutory AgentCivil ProcedureSouthern District of New York
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Coho Energy, Inc.

The case concerns Deborah Gaye Locke's claims of age and sex discrimination against Coho Oil and Gas, Inc. after she was not hired for a 'Pumper' position. Locke, a female over 40, had previously worked for Amoco Production Company in a similar role. Coho acquired properties from Amoco and had different staffing requirements, emphasizing individual pumpers performing all maintenance and repair without assistance. Coho asserted its hiring decision was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons, including negative reference checks, Locke's perceived lack of independent maintenance and repair experience, and the need for pumpers to perform heavy manual labor. The court found Coho's witnesses credible and Locke's testimony less so, particularly regarding fabricated evidence. While the court granted equitable tolling for Locke's late-filed EEOC charge due to administrative confusion, it ultimately concluded that Locke failed to prove that Coho discriminated against her based on age or sex, denying her discrimination claims.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEAEquitable TollingPrima Facie CaseBurden of ProofPretextHiring Decision
References
14
Case No. 04-08-00587-CV, 04-08-00857-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2009

Sonia Valverde v. Biela's Glass & Aluminum Products, Inc. and Alert Lock and Key

A case consolidated on appeal where Sonia Valverde challenged the trial court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Biela's Glass & Aluminum Products, Inc. and Alert Lock & Key. Valverde was injured when a door fell on her and later amended her petition to add negligence claims against Biela’s and Alert, who were designated as responsible third parties. The trial court granted summary judgments based on statute of limitations and res judicata. The appellate court reversed both judgments, clarifying that the 60-day period for joining responsible third parties commences from the date the trial court actually grants the motion for designation, not from the date the motion was filed or when an objection period expires. Consequently, Valverde's claims were timely, nullifying the res judicata defense. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsRes JudicataResponsible Third PartyAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeNegligence ClaimsJoinder of PartiesTrial Court ErrorRemand
References
11
Case No. NO. 01-99-00108-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1999

Xeller v. Locke

This case addresses whether a doctor designated by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (TWCC) can bring an interlocutory appeal from the denial of a summary judgment motion in a suit filed by an injured worker. Dr. Charles Xeller and Medical Evaluation Specialists, Inc. (MES) appealed the denial of their summary judgment motion, which asserted immunity under the Texas Labor Code, against claims by Richard Locke. Locke had filed third-party claims against Xeller and MES, alleging fraud, civil conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, after Xeller, as a designated doctor, assessed Locke with a 0% impairment rating. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, ruling that Xeller and MES are not officers or employees of the state and, therefore, do not qualify for an interlocutory appeal under section 51.014(a)(5) of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code. The court clarified that immunity from liability, while a meaningful defense, does not equate to immunity from suit or the right to an interlocutory appeal, which must be explicitly granted by statute.

Interlocutory AppealSummary Judgment DenialGovernmental ImmunityState Employee StatusDesignated DoctorWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppellate JurisdictionTexas Labor CodeCivil Practice & Remedies CodeFraud Allegations
References
19
Case No. ADJ10248888
Regular
Jan 23, 2019

JUAN PAQUINI vs. SPRING HILL JERSEY CHEESE, INC., dba PETALUMA CREAMERY

Applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that his vehicle accident was not a "sudden and extraordinary" employment condition, which would have allowed compensation for psychiatric injury despite less than six months of employment. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding the applicant's testimony regarding the alleged steering wheel lock was contradictory and lacked credibility. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant failed to prove the incident was uncommon or unexpected beyond personal experience. Consequently, the original order was amended to explicitly state the injury did *not* fall under the sudden and extraordinary exception.

AOE/COELabor Code section 3208.3(d)sudden and extraordinarypsychiatric injuryless than six months employmentmotor vehicle accidentsteering wheel lockedcredibility determinationpreponderance of the evidencefactual inquiry
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1991

Lock v. National Union Fire Insurance Co.

Plaintiff James E. Lock sought workers' compensation for injuries from two accidents in 1987 and 1988 while employed by Nashville Thermal Transfer Plant. The Chancellor found permanent partial disability to his left foot (25%) and right arm (35%). Lock appealed, arguing for total disability or combined injury benefits based on 400 weeks instead of scheduled member awards. The Supreme Court affirmed the Chancellor's findings but modified the award to be based on 400 weeks under T.C.A. § 50-6-207(3)(A)(ii)(dd) for combined arm and foot injuries, even though sustained in separate accidents with the same employer and insurer. The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the Second Injury Fund, the termination of temporary total disability benefits, and the lump sum payment for past due benefits. Additionally, the trial court's post-trial award of litigation expenses as discretionary costs was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation AppealPermanent Partial DisabilityCombined Scheduled InjuriesLump Sum AwardDiscretionary CostsRule 54.04Second Injury FundMaximum Medical ImprovementAppellate ReviewTennessee Supreme Court
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 157 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