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. 2017-06-1778
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2018

Demotte, Julie v. UPS

Julie Demotte sustained a workplace injury involving a broken hip and leg in November 2016 while working for UPS. UPS initially accepted the claim and provided temporary disability benefits. Dr. Jason Evans, the authorized treating physician, placed Ms. Demotte at maximum medical improvement and assigned a three-percent whole-person impairment rating. A compensation hearing was held to determine Ms. Demotte's entitlement to permanent disability, temporary disability, and future medical benefits. The Court ordered UPS to provide lifetime medical benefits for Ms. Demotte's workplace injury, but denied her claims for both temporary and permanent disability benefits. The denial of permanent disability was based on the inadmissibility of Form C-30A as proof of impairment, as Ms. Demotte failed to present admissible evidence. Additionally, the claim for further temporary disability benefits was denied due to an earlier overpayment by UPS that exceeded any subsequent amounts due.

Workplace InjuryFuture Medical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsPermanent Disability BenefitsAdmissibility of Medical ReportsForm C-30AForm C-32Impairment RatingHearsayMaximum Medical Improvement
References
2
Case No. 13-06-00661-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2009

in Re: Advance EMS Services, Inc. D/B/A Advance EMS Ambulance Services, Inc.

Advance EMS Services, Inc. ("Advance EMS") sought a writ of mandamus to compel a trial court to grant its motion to compel arbitration against Gary Davenport. Davenport, a former employee, had sued Advance EMS for various claims including negligence and wrongful termination, stemming from workplace injuries. Advance EMS's motion relied on an arbitration clause in its Standard Operating Procedures manual, but the trial court denied it. The Court of Appeals denied the petition for mandamus, citing Advance EMS's failure to prove a valid arbitration agreement, given inconsistent testimony about the manual's revisions and the timing of Davenport's acknowledgment. The court affirmed deference to the trial court's factual findings and credibility determinations regarding the evidence presented.

ArbitrationMandamusEmployment DisputeFederal Arbitration ActPolicy ManualContract ValidityCredibility DeterminationTexas Court of AppealsScope of AgreementEvidentiary Hearing
References
16
Case No. 14-17-00520-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2019

Fort Bend County v. Melissa Ann Norsworthy

This dissenting opinion addresses a workers' compensation dispute between Fort Bend County, the carrier, and Melissa Ann Norsworthy, the widow of a deceased employee. The central issue revolves around the application of Texas Labor Code section 417.002, concerning a carrier's right to treat a third-party recovery as an advance against future benefits for multiple beneficiaries. The dissenting judge argues that the Supreme Court of Texas's judicial dicta in State Office of Risk Management v. Carty mandates a collective-recovery rule, requiring the aggregation of all beneficiaries' third-party recoveries. Consequently, the dissent contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and ordering benefit payments to Norsworthy without applying this collective-recovery principle to offset future benefits. Therefore, the dissenting opinion concludes that Fort Bend County should be entitled to an advance against Norsworthy's future benefits based on the Carty precedent.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party RecoverySubrogation RightsFuture Benefits AdvanceCollective Recovery RuleJudicial DictaStatutory InterpretationTexas Labor CodeBeneficiary RightsSummary Judgment Appeal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Travelers Insurance Co.

Appellant Billy Austin Goodman was injured in a job-related accident in 1976 and received over $100,000 in workers' compensation benefits from The Travelers Insurance Company. Goodman later pursued a third-party action and settled with one defendant for $308,000, of which Travelers received $50,000 for its subrogation interest. After the third-party action, Goodman incurred further medical expenses, which Travelers refused to reimburse, leading to a denied claim by the Industrial Accident Board. Goodman subsequently sued Travelers, seeking reimbursement and a declaratory judgment for future medical expenses. The trial court granted Travelers' motion for summary judgment, citing TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 8307, § 6a, which mandates that excess recovery from a third-party action serves as an advance against future benefits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the entire net recovery, after reimbursing the insurer for past benefits, acts as an advance fund against future compensation and medical payments, thereby relieving the insurer of further liability until the fund is exhausted.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionSubrogationMedical ExpensesStatutory InterpretationAdvance Against Future BenefitsTexas LawInsurance LiabilityDouble Recovery
References
2
Case No. 2025-60-2682
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2025

Henry, Martin v. Kirby Buildling Sustems

Henry Martin sustained a thumb injury while working for Kirby Building Systems on January 7, 2024. He sought an order from the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims to ensure his entitlement to future lifetime medical benefits, despite reaching maximum medical improvement with a 0% impairment rating. Kirby Building Systems argued that existing statutes already guarantee these benefits and that the case was not ripe for adjudication due to a lack of active disputes. The Court, however, found the case ripe, reasoning that an explicit order would prevent future hardships for Mr. Martin regarding treatment access and potential statute of limitations issues. The Court denied Kirby Building Systems' motion for summary judgment and ordered the employer to provide reasonable, necessary, and work-related future medical benefits for Mr. Martin's thumb injury with Dr. Todd Rubin.

Medical BenefitsLifetime Medical BenefitsRipeness DoctrineStatute of LimitationsFuture Medical TreatmentCompensation OrderThumb InjuryEmployer ResponsibilityAdjudicationDispute Certification Notice
References
7
Case No. 2015-07-0040
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2016

Choate, Jerry v. Revel Logging, LLC

Jerry Choate, a truck driver, sustained neck, back, and head injuries in an August 2014 work accident. He sought permanent partial disability, additional temporary total disability (TTD), and mileage reimbursement. The employer, Revel Logging, LLC, disputed these claims and requested reimbursement for a TTD overpayment. Medical evaluations indicated no permanent impairment and set the maximum medical improvement (MMI) date at December 9, 2014. The Court denied Mr. Choate's claims for permanent partial disability, additional TTD, and mileage reimbursement, concluding his injuries did not result in permanent disability and his legal residence was within the qualifying mileage for providers. However, the Court granted Mr. Choate future medical benefits and denied Revel's request for TTD overpayment reimbursement, citing employer oversight and potential hardship to Mr. Choate.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsMedical BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityMileage ReimbursementOverpayment ReimbursementPost-traumatic HeadachesMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Neurosurgeon Evaluation
References
9
Case No. 2016-01-0035 / 67325-2014
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2017

Findley, Jack v. Volswagen Group of America, Inc.

This case involves an employee, Jack Keith Findley, who sustained a back injury while working for Volkswagen. He sought temporary and additional permanent partial disability benefits, leading to a dispute over his impairment rating, maximum medical improvement date, and the compensability of his condition. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims sided with Mr. Findley, awarding him the requested disability benefits and future medical care under Dr. Jolley, based on Dr. Hodges' medical opinion regarding his work-related injury and functional limitations. The court also allowed Volkswagen to offset short-term disability payments.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityMedical BenefitsImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementVoluntary ResignationMedical Opinion ConflictBack InjuryLumbar Disc Herniation
References
5
Case No. 2016-08-1235
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2017

Zhu, Hongwei v. Great China Supermarket

Mr. Hongwei Zhu filed for an expedited hearing seeking medical and temporary total disability benefits for a left ankle injury sustained on October 25, 2016, while working for Great China Supermarket. The employer was uninsured and disputed the claim. The Court found Great China Supermarket subject to Workers' Compensation Law, granted Mr. Zhu's request for past and future medical treatment with Dr. James Robinson, and found him eligible for benefits from the Uninsured Employer's Fund. However, the Court denied temporary total disability benefits as the period of disability was less than seven days.

Ankle InjuryMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityUninsured EmployerExpedited HearingCausationEmployer LiabilityWorkplace InjuryMedical TreatmentDisability Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Office of Risk Management v. Carty

This case addresses certified questions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit regarding the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The central issue is how a workers’ compensation carrier’s right to treat a third-party recovery as an advance against future benefits should be calculated when multiple beneficiaries are involved. The Court held that when multiple beneficiaries recover compensation benefits through the same covered employee, the carrier’s rights to a third-party settlement must be determined by treating it as a single, collective recovery. This approach ensures full reimbursement for carriers and helps reduce costs, consistent with the Act’s “first money” rule, and applies equally to past benefits paid and future benefits owed. Consequently, questions regarding the apportionment method among beneficiaries are deemed moot.

Texas Workers' Compensation ActThird-party recoveryReimbursementAdvance against future benefitsMultiple beneficiariesCollective recovery basisApportionment of settlementSubrogation interestDeath benefitsTexas Labor Code Section 417.002
References
18
Case No. 01-15-00453-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2015

the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania v. Kevin Roberts and Exxon Mobil Corporation

The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (ICSP) appeals a trial court's summary judgment that denied its worker's compensation subrogation claims and a credit against future benefits. This case stems from an accident at an ExxonMobil refinery where employees of Savage Services, Kevin Roberts and Arturo Munoz, were injured, leading ICSP to pay worker's compensation benefits. ExxonMobil settled with Roberts and Munoz, but ICSP's subrogation rights were not honored due to an asserted waiver of subrogation in the contract between ExxonMobil and Savage. ICSP argues that the waiver is invalid because Savage was not contractually obligated to indemnify ExxonMobil for this specific accident, and that even if a waiver were enforceable, it should not preclude ICSP's statutory right to an advance against future benefits. ICSP seeks a reversal of the trial court's judgment and a new trial.

Workers' CompensationSubrogationWaiver of SubrogationSummary Judgment AppealThird-Party LiabilityContractual IndemnityFuture Benefits CreditConversion ClaimOil Refinery AccidentTexas Civil Procedure
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 12,196 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