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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Electro-Voice, Inc. v. O'Dell

The appellee, Gladys Carolyn O’Dell, an assembly line worker for appellant Electro-Voice, Inc., sustained an allergic reaction from a bee sting at work on November 23, 1970, leading to a workmen's compensation claim for total permanent disability. The circuit court initially found the injury compensable and awarded temporary total disability until May 7, 1973. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed that the bee sting arose out of and in the course of employment, considering the presence of bees in the plant a hazard of employment. However, the court modified the award, terminating temporary total disability benefits on July 3, 1972, based on Dr. Mims' medical opinion and evidence that O’Dell had resumed work.

workmen's compensationbee sting injuryallergic reactiontemporary total disabilityscope of employmentarising out of employmenthazard incident to employmentmaximum medical recoveryappellate reviewjudgment modification
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Bee Line, Inc.

The plaintiffs initiated an action to secure an injunction preventing the defendants, including Bee Line, Inc., from forming and implementing an agreement regarding the employment terms for maintenance staff. Initially, the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction was granted. However, this order was subsequently reversed on both legal and factual grounds, leading to the denial of the motion. The court determined there was insufficient evidence to establish that the defendants' ongoing negotiations violated the plaintiffs' existing contractual rights, noting that any proposed contract might be for a period commencing after the plaintiffs' contract concluded in November 1941. Furthermore, the court identified the situation as a labor dispute, as defined by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, and found that the necessary conditions for issuing an injunction in such a dispute had not been satisfied.

injunctionlabor disputecontractual rightsemployment agreementpendente liteCivil Practice ActBee Line Inc.appellate reviewmotion deniedmaintenance employees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schuhl v. Mobil Oil Corp.

The claimant's husband, a manager of a Mobil gas station, died from cardiorespiratory arrest due to anaphylactic shock after a bee sting while driving to work. At the time of the incident, he was responding to a work call, checking competitors' gas prices, and on his way to make a bank deposit, all tasks related to his employment duties. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied death benefits, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this decision and awarded benefits to the claimant. The employer appealed the Board's decision, contending that the finding of a work-related bee sting was speculative and lacked substantial evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that the decedent's activities were for his employer's benefit and within the course of his employment, thus making the injury compensable.

Accidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentBee StingAnaphylactic ShockCommuting ExceptionWork-Related ErrandEmployer BenefitSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDeath Benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Hooks v. Cee Bee Manufacturing Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision granting death benefits to a claimant. The decedent, a foreman, was shot and killed in the employer's parking lot while attempting to protect what he believed to be his personal property (a CB radio) during a break-in, an act the Board inferred was also an attempt to protect employer property. The Board concluded that his death arose out of and in the course of employment, a finding upheld by the appellate court. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that there was substantial evidence to support the Board's determination that the decedent's actions were for the employer's benefit, despite his stated personal concern.

Death BenefitsScope of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentEmployer Property ProtectionParking Lot InjuryWorkplace ViolenceAppellate ReviewClaimant EntitlementSubstantial EvidenceDecedent's Actions
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Sting, Ltd. v. R.B. Foods, Inc.

Appellants, Texas Sting, Ltd. and Michael Konderla, appealed the denial of their motion for new trial, seeking to set aside a dismissal for want of prosecution and a default judgment. They contended they received no notice of either the dismissal docket setting or the trial on R.B. Foods’s counterclaims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal for want of prosecution, noting that appellants had a post-dismissal hearing but failed to present evidence of diligent prosecution. However, the court reversed the default judgment, finding that appellants' failure to appear was not intentional or consciously indifferent due to the clerk mailing notices to an incorrect, outdated address. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings on R.B. Foods’s counterclaims.

Dismissal for Want of ProsecutionDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice RequirementsDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionCraddock TestAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil ProcedureRemand
References
21
Case No. 03-19-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Andrew Sansom Heinz Stefan Roesch Bee Spring, Ltd. Hays County And City of Kyle v. Texas Railroad Commission

A group of landowners and governmental entities (appellants) sought to enjoin the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline owned by Permian Highway Pipeline, LLC, and Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, LLC. They appealed a district court's decision that sustained a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Railroad Commission and granted summary judgment to the Pipeline Entities. The appellants challenged the Commission's Rule 70 under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to establish pipeline routing standards and sought declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the APA claim improperly targeted the absence of a rule rather than its validity, and the UDJA claim lacked a viable legal theory. The court also rejected the appellants' constitutional arguments regarding due course of law, special privileges, and legislative delegation concerning the pipeline entities' eminent domain powers.

Eminent DomainNatural Gas PipelineTexas Railroad CommissionAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeSovereign ImmunityLegislative DelegationDue Course of LawSeparation of Powers
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Cuellar

Marcos M. Cuellar, an employee of Stowers Furniture Company, suffered an insect sting on April 4, 1969, while driving a company truck, leading to total permanent disability. The Standard Fire Insurance Company, the workmen's compensation carrier, appealed the jury's finding of disability, arguing insufficient evidence for the sting and lack of causal relationship between the employment and injury. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including Cuellar's testimony, a co-worker's account, and a dermatologist's opinion, affirming the jury's finding that the sting occurred. The court also rejected the argument that the insect sting was not a risk inherent to the employment, citing precedents where similar arguments were overruled in workmen's compensation cases involving insect stings. The trial court's judgment awarding Cuellar recovery for total permanent disability was affirmed.

Workmen's CompensationInsect Sting InjuryTotal Permanent DisabilityCourse of EmploymentCausal RelationshipRisk of EmploymentJury FindingsAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceTrial Court Affirmed
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1981

Claim of Gaylord v. Ronald Gaylord, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board found the claimant's cerebrovascular infarction and resulting left hemiplegia to be causally related to a bee sting incurred while preparing to install a bulk milk tank at a customer's farm. This determination was supported by the claimant's testimony, a witness, and four treating and examining physicians. The carrier's expert medical witness disputed the diagnosis, but the Board has the authority to resolve conflicts in medical opinions and determine their weight and credibility. The Board's decision is affirmed as it is supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationBee Sting InjuryCausationCerebrovascular InfarctionHemiplegiaMedical Opinion ConflictSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewWork-Related InjuryBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Simon

William Simon, a mechanic, died from an allergic reaction to a bee sting during work. His wife, Barbara Simon, claimed workers' compensation benefits, which were initially denied by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund (TWCIF) as the injury was not deemed to arise from employment. After various appeals, the district court granted summary judgment for Mrs. Simon and denied TWCIF's motion. This appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Mrs. Simon, finding the trial court erred regarding the waiver issue. The court affirmed the denial of TWCIF's summary judgment, concluding that fact issues regarding causation remained. The case is remanded for trial to determine if the injury arose from employment and to assess damages and fees, with instructions for lump-sum attorney's fees.

Workers' CompensationBee StingAllergic ReactionCausationCourse and Scope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentWaiverAttorney's FeesLump SumRemand
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murray v. South End Improvement Corp.

The plaintiff, a painter, was injured after falling from a ladder due to a bee attack while working on the Browns' home, a project funded by SEIC. He sued the Browns and SEIC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, 241, and common-law negligence, citing failure to provide safety equipment and warn about bees. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the Browns exempt from Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) due to their status as one/two-family dwelling owners who did not control the work. Additionally, the court found no liability under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence as the Browns did not supervise the plaintiff or have knowledge of the bees. SEIC was also found not liable as it merely administered the program and did not supervise or control the work. The appeal affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that summary judgment was appropriate for both defendants.

Summary judgmentLabor Law liabilityHomeowner exemptionPremises liabilityBee attackConstruction accidentSafe place to workAppellate decisionAgency liabilityNegligence defense
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 15 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