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. 06-10-00100-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2011

in the Interest of D. M. H. and K. M. H., Minor Children

David Len Moulton appealed his murder conviction for the death of his wife, Rebecca Moulton. The primary issue was the trial court's erroneous jury instruction, which included an "asphyxiation by manner and means unknown" allegation alongside manual strangulation and drowning. The medical examiner could not conclusively determine the exact cause of asphyxia, though several options were identified through evidence. The appellate court found that the erroneous instruction, coupled with the prosecutor's arguments, caused harm to Moulton. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Murder convictionCriminal appealJury charge errorAsphyxiationManner and means unknownStrangulationDrowningSuffocationDomestic violenceMedical examiner testimony
References
61
Case No. W2013-00845-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2014

State of Tennessee v. Joseph Caronna

Joseph Caronna, convicted of first-degree murder of his wife Tina Caronna, appealed the judgment from Shelby County Criminal Court. His wife's body was discovered two days after her disappearance in her Chevy Avalanche, with the cause of death determined as asphyxiation or strangulation. Caronna's appeal challenged speedy trial rights, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the admission of evidence concerning financial fraud, family conflict, and an extramarital affair. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error, noting the overwhelming circumstantial evidence and a confession to an inmate.

First Degree MurderSpousal HomicideAsphyxiationStrangulationCircumstantial EvidenceSpeedy Trial ViolationSufficiency of EvidenceEvidence AdmissibilityFinancial FraudExtramarital Affair
References
88
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Frye

This workman's compensation case involved an appeal by an insurance carrier (appellant) seeking to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award for Mrs. Frye and her minor daughter, following the death of N. G. Frye. Frye, an employee, died from gas asphyxiation after entering a tank to rescue an employee of another company during an emergency, a situation endorsed by his foreman. The insurance carrier contended that Frye's actions fell outside the course of his employment. However, the appellate court affirmed the lower court's lump-sum judgment, determining that Frye's injury, sustained in an emergency under his foreman's direction, was incidental to and arose from his employment under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Workman's CompensationScope of EmploymentEmergency DoctrineRescue AttemptAsphyxiation FatalityIndustrial AccidentLump Sum AwardAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Appeals
References
19
Case No. 06-10-00100-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2011

David Len Moulton v. State

David Len Moulton was convicted of murdering his wife, Rebecca Moulton, and sentenced to sixty years' imprisonment. The conviction was appealed on several grounds, including an erroneous jury charge. The Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana found that the trial court's jury charge, which included "asphyxiation by manner and means unknown" when the manner and means were "unknowable" (i.e., multiple known options were presented by evidence), was erroneous. The court determined this error caused "some harm" to Moulton, especially considering the State's closing argument focused on the "manner and means unknown" allegation coupled with suffocation testimony. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Criminal AppealJury Charge ErrorAsphyxiationManner and Means UnknownHomicideMedical Examiner TestimonyAutopsy ReportDomestic ViolenceEvidence SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2005

Critchlow v. First Unum Life Insurance Co. of America

Plaintiff Shirley M. Critchlow sued First UNUM Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA for accidental-death benefits following her son's death from autoerotic asphyxiation. The District Court initially granted summary judgment for UNUM, which the Second Circuit first affirmed, then vacated and reversed, remanding the case for judgment in favor of Critchlow. This decision addresses Critchlow's subsequent motion for attorney's fees, prejudgment interest, and costs. The court granted attorney's fees for the appellate phase ($15,504.38) and prejudgment interest (3.25% annually from July 7, 1999) but denied attorney's fees for the district court phase, concluding UNUM did not act in bad faith given the unsettled legal landscape at the time.

ERISAAttorney's FeesPrejudgment InterestCostsAppellate PracticeInsurance LawAccidental Death BenefitsSelf-Inflicted Injury ExclusionAutoerotic AsphyxiationSecond Circuit Court of Appeals
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amoco Chemicals Corp. v. Sutton

This premises liability case consolidates three suits against Amoco Chemicals Corporation for the deaths of two contractors' employees (Sutton and Salinas) from nitrogen asphyxiation in a reactor and injuries to another contractor's employee (Marzka) during a rescue attempt. Amoco, the owner, was found liable by a jury, and a judgment was rendered against it for the benefit of the victims' survivors and workers' compensation carriers. Amoco sought indemnity from Arsco, the employer of Sutton and Salinas, based on an indemnity provision in their contract. The court reversed the indemnity award to Amoco for Marzka's damages, finding that the jury determined Marzka's injuries were due to Amoco's sole negligence, thus triggering an exception in the indemnity clause. In all other respects, the judgment, including Amoco's liability to the initial plaintiffs and its indemnity from Arsco for Sutton and Salinas' deaths, was affirmed.

Premises LiabilityIndustrial AccidentNitrogen AsphyxiationContractor LiabilityIndemnity AgreementSole Negligence ExceptionInvitee StatusForeseeability of DangerDuty of CareWarning Obligation
References
32
Case No. 07-01-0111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2001

Shanna Perez, Individually and as Next Friend of Samantha Perez v. Williams & Peters Construction Company

Shanna Perez, individually and as next friend of Samantha Perez, appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in her gross negligence suit against Williams & Peters Construction Co., Inc. The suit stemmed from the death of Pedro Perez during his employment, who was asphyxiated by sand while cleaning a bin. Despite the employer being a worker's compensation subscriber, the appellant sought damages for gross negligence. The appellate court reviewed whether the appellant presented more than a scintilla of evidence for gross negligence, applying the standard of extreme risk and subjective awareness of the risk with conscious indifference. The court ultimately found no evidence that the employer or its employees subjectively knew of the particular risk to Pedro on the day of the incident, despite potential OSHA violations and inadequate procedures, and thus affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Gross NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealWorkplace FatalityConfined Space AccidentEmployer LiabilityWorker's Compensation LawTexas Court of AppealsAsphyxiation DeathOSHA ViolationsConscious Indifference
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 1965

Knox v. Batson

Joe S. Knox and Robert Norman Ammons, dry-wall finishers for Carl J. Batson dba Batson Construction Company, were asphyxiated by a gas leak in a motel room near a construction site in Tullahoma, Tennessee, where they were working. Their widows sought death benefits under the Tennessee Workmen’s Compensation Law. The employer provided a daily allowance for out-of-town expenses but did not mandate specific lodging, although assistance was provided in finding accommodations. The Trial Judge denied compensation, ruling that the deaths did not arise out of and in the course of their employment, as their lodging was a matter of personal choice and convenience, not a direct incident of employment. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed this decision, distinguishing the case from 'traveling men' cases where lodging is an essential part of the job, and concluding that the employees' deaths did not result from a risk peculiar to their employment.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentMotel AsphyxiationConstruction WorkersOut-of-town EmploymentPersonal Comfort DoctrineTraveling Employee DoctrineRisk Peculiar to Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enserch Corp. v. Parker

This case from the Texas Supreme Court addresses a wrongful death claim and the enforceability of an indemnity agreement. Billy Joe Parker and Preston Edward Watson, employees of J.W. “Bill” Christie, Inc., died from asphyxiation while working on a pipeline owned by Enserch Corporation (Lone Star Gas Company). The plaintiffs sued Enserch, which in turn sought indemnity from Christie. The court affirmed the remand of the wrongful death claim for trial, citing unresolved fact issues regarding potential misidentification prejudice and Enserch's retained control over Christie's work. Crucially, the court reversed the appellate court on the indemnity claim, affirming the trial court's decision that Christie must indemnify Enserch. It found the indemnity agreement enforceable, satisfying the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, the express negligence rule, and the conspicuousness requirement.

Wrongful deathIndemnity agreementIndependent contractorMisidentificationStatute of limitationsExpress negligence ruleConspicuousness requirementWorkers' Compensation ActPipeline accidentNatural gas leak
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of Metcalf

A vessel, S/T LADY MARGARET, caught fire at Seabrook Shipyard in 1978, causing severe burns to Captain George Bosarge and the death of Gerald Douglas Davis due to asphyxiation. The vessel owners, James Herman Metcalf and Margaret Metcalf, initiated a limitation of liability action and impled Deseo Marine, the manufacturer, for negligence. After settlements, the Metcalfs, Bosarge, and Sally Davis McGee (Davis's mother) aligned as plaintiffs against Deseo Marine. The Court found Gerald Davis 60% negligent for causing the grease fire, with this fault imputed to the Metcalfs, and Deseo Marine 40% negligent for faulty design using non-fire retardant materials. Damages were apportioned, resulting in judgments against Deseo Marine for Bosarge ($74,140), McGee ($11,631.45), and the Metcalfs ($36,202.06), plus prejudgment interest.

Admiralty LawMaritime NegligenceProduct LiabilityVessel FirePersonal InjuryWrongful DeathComparative FaultLimitation of LiabilityShipyard IncidentGrease Fire
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 10 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