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. NO. 03-06-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2009

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Samuel Campos, an employee, was injured on the job, leading to disputes over his impairment rating and reimbursement for travel expenses. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed a designated doctor's 6% impairment rating and denied travel expenses, which Campos challenged in court. The case involved the Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) because Campos's employer's insurer became impaired. Initially filed in Winkler County, the case was transferred to Travis County, where TPCIGA was granted summary judgment. The Third District Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, ruling that the Workers' Compensation Act's specific mandatory venue provision, which places venue in the county of the employee's residence at the time of injury (Winkler County), overrides the Guaranty Act's general venue provision, which would place it in Travis County. The court remanded the case with instructions to transfer it to Winkler County.

Workers' CompensationVenue DisputeMandatory VenueStatutory ConstructionTexas Labor CodeTexas Insurance CodeImpairment RatingTravel Expenses ReimbursementJudicial ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. 03-08-00483-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2010

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Doris J. Toberny, an exhibit decorator, injured her back on the job in May 2000, leading to spinal-fusion surgery that also corrected pre-existing scoliosis. Initially, her employer's insurer, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association for Reliance National Insurance Company ('the Company'), paid for the surgery. However, in December 2001, the Company disputed the claim, asserting the injury was only a lower back strain and not the cause of her scoliosis. After a designated doctor assigned Toberny a 25-percent impairment rating in 2002, the Company paid supplemental income benefits for eight quarters. Three years later, in September 2005, the Company sought to dispute her impairment rating and discontinue benefits, claiming her pre-existing conditions were not compensable. The Division of Workers’ Compensation and the district court found that the Company had waived its right to contest the impairment rating under former rule 130.102(g) due to late dispute filing, and affirmed Toberny's 25-percent impairment rating and entitlement to benefits. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the validity of rule 130.102(g) and the finding of waiver, thus confirming Toberny's impairment rating and attorney's fees.

Workers' CompensationImpairment Rating DisputeSupplemental Income BenefitsWaiver DoctrineCompensability of InjuryExtent of InjuryJudicial Review of Agency DecisionTexas Appeals CourtAdministrative Rule ValidityMaximum Medical Improvement
References
12
Case No. ADJ7483972, ADJ7483952
Regular
Nov 08, 2012

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, Roy Haas, who sustained injuries to his left elbow and bilateral shoulders. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to increase Haas's permanent disability ratings. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's recommendation to rate impairments based on the highest applicable factor, citing that Dr. Suchard's report did not adequately explain combining strength and range of motion impairments for the elbow, and that strength deficits should not be rated where objective anatomic findings like loss of motion are present and prioritized by the AMA Guides. Consequently, Haas's permanent disability for the left elbow was increased to 25%, and for his shoulders to 31%.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardsPermanent Disability RatingAgreed Medical ExaminerAMA GuidesRange of MotionLoss of StrengthOccupational CodeLabor Code Sections
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Sharon Walker, an employee of Saturn Corporation, sought a full court review after a Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel’s decision reduced her disability award. Walker suffered from tenosynovitis in both wrists and ulnar nerve entrapment in her left elbow due to repetitive work, requiring surgeries and leading to permanent restrictions. While medical experts provided anatomical impairment ratings, a vocational specialist assessed a 97% occupational disability given Walker’s limited skills and local job market opportunities. The court reversed the Panel's decision, affirming the trial court's original finding of an eighty-five percent permanent partial disability to both arms, emphasizing that vocational impairment is not solely dependent on anatomical impairment.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityTenosynovitisDe Quervain's SyndromeUlnar Nerve EntrapmentVocational DisabilityAnatomical ImpairmentOccupational DisabilityRepetitive Strain InjurySurgery
References
12
Case No. 03-06-00404-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2007

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves a restricted appeal filed by Johnnie M. Charles from a trial court's order dismissing her cause without prejudice. Charles initially appealed a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission decision regarding her impairment rating. After a venue transfer to Travis County, her case was dismissed for failure to pay filing fees. A nunc pro tunc order was later issued to correct a clerical error in the cause number of the original dismissal order. Charles appealed, citing errors in the dismissal, the lack of a court reporter, and the original hearing. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that Charles's challenges to the original dismissal were untimely and that no error occurred in the nunc pro tunc order, which merely corrected a clerical error without altering the original judgment's substance.

restricted appealdismissal without prejudicenunc pro tunc orderclerical errorwant of prosecutionappellate jurisdictiontimeliness of appealTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Appellate Procedureworkers' compensation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This consolidated appeal addresses whether permanent total disability can be awarded in Tennessee when an anatomical disability rating is below 16.7 percent. The Supreme Court reconciles conflicting panel decisions, specifically overruling Seiber v. Greenbrier Industries, Inc. The court holds that the limitations outlined in Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-6-241, which apply to permanent partial disability awards, do not extend to permanent total disability claims. The decision affirms the trial courts' judgments, allowing individuals like Vernon Ray Davis and Bessie Lou Rayfield to receive permanent total disability benefits despite having anatomical impairment ratings under 16.7 percent.

Permanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation ActAnatomical Impairment RatingStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawConsolidated AppealVocational DisabilityEmployee RetentionLegislative Intent
References
8
Case No. 06-01-00121-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2002

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves an appeal by Pacific Employers Insurance Company, a workers' compensation carrier, against Jimmy I. Brown, an injured worker, regarding an impairment rating. Pacific disputes the trial court's judgment of a seventeen percent impairment rating, arguing it conflicts with the trial court's findings of fact stating a thirteen percent rating. The appellate court examines the applicability of various Texas Rules of Civil Procedure concerning findings of fact and judgments, and the requirements for assigning impairment ratings under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The court ultimately reverses the trial court's judgment and remands the case for a new trial due to the conflict between the judgment and the findings of fact, and to ensure compliance with statutory notice requirements for the TWCC. The court also discusses the legal basis for impairment ratings, emphasizing that a trial court must adopt a specific rating assigned by a doctor in the case.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureFindings of FactConclusions of LawJudgment ConflictReversal and RemandTreating PhysicianDesignated Doctor
References
9
Case No. 2021-06-1175
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2023

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The employee, Savitri Matthews, suffered a mental injury after being held at gunpoint during a store robbery at Family Dollar Stores. Her claim was accepted, and she received treatment from Dr. Greg Kyser, who assigned a ten percent impairment rating. Two other psychiatrists, Dr. Stephen Montgomery and Dr. Melvin Goldin (from the MIRR), also provided impairment ratings. The trial court concluded the employee sustained an impairment consistent with the 10% ratings from Dr. Kyser and Dr. Goldin and determined she was entitled to increased benefits due to a lower post-injury wage rate. The employer appealed. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, finding the employer failed to rebut the presumption of correctness of the medical impairment ratings and that the employee's post-injury wages were indeed lower.

Workers' CompensationMental InjuryArmed RobberyPTSDImpairment RatingWage LossIncreased BenefitsAppeals BoardPsychiatric EvaluationMedical Impairment Rating Registry
References
13
Case No. 03-08-00532-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2010

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This is a workers’ compensation case where the insurance carrier, Royal Indemnity Company, contested the impairment rating assigned to the claimant, Severiano DeLeon, by the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation. The impairment rating was based on advisories issued by the Division, which were subsequently determined by the Court of Appeals to be invalid. The district court held that the assigned impairment rating was invalid, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment. The court concluded that the 20% impairment rating assigned to DeLeon was invalid because it was improperly based on the invalid and withdrawn Division Advisories.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingSpinal FusionAMA GuidesMaximum Medical ImprovementAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUltra Vires ActMedical EvaluationTexas Labor Code
References
9
Case No. 2017-01-0638
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2019

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Mark A. Rollins, an employee, filed a request for an expedited hearing to compel his employer, Scenic City Concrete Pumping, LLC, to authorize a referral to Dr. Jerry Smith for a second impairment rating. Mr. Rollins had previously been rated at four-percent impairment by Dr. Benji Miller after a work-related ankle fracture. Dr. Matthew Buchanan subsequently referred Mr. Rollins to Dr. Smith for an impairment rating, a referral not authorized by the employer. The Court determined that the Workers' Compensation Law only mandates employer authorization for referrals for medical treatment, not for impairment ratings disputed by the employee. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Rollins's request.

Impairment RatingMedical ReferralsExpedited HearingTreatment AuthorizationOrthopedic InjuryAnkle FractureMaximum Medical ImprovementPhysician PanelStatutory InterpretationEmployer Medical Responsibility
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,989 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