A Texas court recently ruled on a case involving Amazon.com Services, LLC and its former employee Jessica G. Holguin. The Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District, issued its opinion on May 5, 2026, regarding a default judgment that awarded Holguin nearly $1 million for injuries she sustained while working. This ruling is significant as it addresses the standards for proving damages in workplace injury cases.

Holguin filed a lawsuit against Amazon after suffering injuries while moving heavy items at work. The court awarded her a total of $997,749.55 in damages. Amazon, which did not respond to the lawsuit or attend the hearing, subsequently filed a restricted appeal, questioning the sufficiency of evidence supporting the damages awarded. The court's decision affects not only Holguin but also sets a precedent for how damages are evaluated in similar cases.

In this case, Holguin alleged that her injuries resulted from her work at Amazon. She filed for a default judgment after Amazon failed to respond to her lawsuit. During the hearing, Holguin provided testimony regarding her injuries, but the only evidence presented was her own statements, which primarily consisted of affirmations to leading questions from her attorney. Additionally, Holguin submitted affidavits from medical providers, but these were not admitted into evidence during the hearing.

The trial court awarded Holguin damages for various categories, including past and future medical expenses, pain and mental anguish, and loss of earning capacity. The total amount awarded was nearly $1 million, which Amazon contested in its appeal. The court noted that Holguin had met the requirements for a restricted appeal, including filing within the appropriate time frame and not participating in the original hearing.

The court ruled that while Holguin's testimony supported some damages, there was insufficient evidence for many of the awarded amounts. Specifically, the court stated, "there is a complete absence of evidence from which the trial court could calculate damages" for various categories, including medical expenses and noneconomic damages like pain and suffering. The court emphasized that damages must be supported by evidence that justifies the amounts awarded, and in this case, that evidence was lacking.

The ruling affirmed the past lost earning capacity amount of $4,650 but reversed and remanded the judgment for a new trial on the remaining damages. The court's decision highlights the importance of presenting adequate evidence in support of damage claims, particularly in default judgment cases where the defendant does not participate in the proceedings.

This ruling may have broader implications for future workplace injury cases, as it reinforces the need for plaintiffs to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims for damages. Employers and employees alike may need to be more vigilant in documenting injuries and expenses related to workplace incidents to ensure fair compensation.

Looking ahead, Amazon may consider appealing the decision further, but details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The case underscores the ongoing challenges faced by employees seeking compensation for workplace injuries and the legal standards that govern such claims.