How the firm builds and wins worker-side cases.
Five detailed case studies. Each walks through the facts as they were when the worker called the firm, the doctrinal framework the firm applied, the defense theories that emerged, and the strategic choices that produced the outcome. These are companion narratives to the verdicts and appellate authorities profiled on the Victories page.
Every case looks impossible at the beginning. The worker has been fired, demoted, or harassed; the employer has the documents and the witnesses; the law is technical, and the deadlines are short. What makes the difference is the trial team’s preparation — the doctrinal precision, the depositions taken, the documents fought for in discovery, the experts retained, and the way the case is framed for the jury or arbitrator. These case studies show that work.
Alleyton Resource Co. v. Ball
A unanimous jury returned a $1.73 million verdict, including $750,000 in punitive damages on a gross negligence finding, after a quarry worker was fired for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed; after requesting briefing on the merits, the Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for review. Total recovery after affirmance: $1,977,027.73. The case is the firm’s anchor § 451 verdict and is referenced extensively across the cluster.
Newberne v. NC Department of Public Safety
A unanimous jury returned $1.1 million on a willful violation finding after a former state trooper was fired for reporting other troopers’ unjustified assault of a young man during an arrest. Final judgment — including prejudgment interest, costs, and statutory attorney’s fees — totaled $2,000,887.21. The case demonstrates how the firm builds whistleblower cases against governmental defendants and proves willfulness for fee-shifting.
Salas v. Fluor Daniel Services Corp.
Published Texas appellate authority establishing the § 451 evidence framework — what kinds of circumstantial evidence a worker may use to prove the causal link between the workers’ compensation claim and the adverse action. The opinion’s framework now applies across the firm’s broader Texas § 451 docket and is regularly cited by Texas trial courts and the Houston Court of Appeals in subsequent § 451 retaliation matters. The case study walks through the trial-level evidentiary record, the appellate framing, and the doctrinal contribution.
§ 260A.014 AAA Arbitration
Two long-term care employees — a housekeeping supervisor and a Lead Certified Nursing Assistant who had risen to Staffing Coordinator — reported alleged mistreatment of a memory-care resident with dementia to state surveyors. Within weeks, one was fired and the other was stripped of her permanent role. The Arbitrator entered a Final Award of $375,681 after a three-day evidentiary hearing, applying the but-for causation standard articulated by the Texas Supreme Court in Apache Corp. v. Davis. The case study walks through the meeting where the abuse video was shown, the Arbitrator’s finding that a key written statement was false, and the dismantling of three layered defenses.
Federally Funded ORR Children’s Home Representation
A federally funded children’s home representation where a worker reported alleged mistreatment of children at an Office of Refugee Resettlement-funded Unaccompanied Children Program facility. The case study walks through the multi-statute coordination across NDAA § 4712 federal contractor whistleblower, Tex. H&S Code § 260A.014 long-term care retaliation, and Tex. Family Code § 261.110 child abuse reporter retaliation — the layered framework that maximizes worker protection when multiple statutes apply to a single retaliation pattern. Outcome and specific facts redacted for confidentiality.
Tell us what happened.
Every case in these studies started with a phone call from a worker. If your matter has any of the doctrinal patterns described above — workers’ compensation retaliation, healthcare whistleblower retaliation, public-employee whistleblower retaliation, long-term care abuse reporting — the case evaluation form is the most thorough way to start.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any future matter. Every case is different, and outcomes depend on the specific facts and applicable law. Statements about verdicts, settlements, and recoveries reflect the specific cases referenced and should not be taken as predictions about other matters. Specific verdict figures are subject to attorneys’ fees, costs, and litigation expenses as disclosed on the Victories page.
This page is attorney advertising. The content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship. An attorney-client relationship is created only by a signed engagement agreement between the firm and the client.
Doyle Dennis Avery LLP · 3401 Allen Parkway, Suite 100, Houston, Texas 77019 · (888) 571-1001.
