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

St. Paul Fire and Marine Ins. Co. v. Confer

Patricia Confer, widow of Dr. Ronald Confer, sought workers' compensation death benefits after Dr. Confer died in a car accident. She alleged he was in the course and scope of his employment, intending to purchase computer supplies for his employer, Texas Educational Foundation, before heading home. After an initial favorable ruling was reversed by an appeals panel, Mrs. Confer successfully sued in district court, where a jury found in her favor. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, the appellant, challenged the verdict, citing insufficient evidence, erroneous exclusion of testimony, and an improper attorney's fees award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "dual purpose rule" to uphold the jury's finding that Dr. Confer was on a business errand at the time of the accident and finding no reversible errors in the trial court's other rulings.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentDual Purpose RuleAutomobile AccidentEvidentiary RulingAttorney's FeesTexas Labor CodeSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 2017-06-0883
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Williams, Mark v. Yates Services

Mr. Mark Williams filed a claim for temporary disability benefits and medical benefits against his employer, Yates Services, following a workplace injury on February 23, 2015. Yates Services argued the claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that Mr. Williams could not prove compensability. The Court found that while Mr. Williams timely filed his claim by sending a Request for Benefit Review Conference (RBC), he failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate a likelihood of success at a hearing on the merits. Specifically, he did not provide medical testimony or records to establish that his injury contributed more than fifty percent to his need for medical treatment. The Court therefore denied his request for temporary disability and medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsStatute of LimitationsCompensabilityExpedited HearingBurden of ProofMedical CertaintyExpert Medical TestimonyPetition for Benefit Determination
References
3
Case No. 2015-06-0700
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2016

Berry, Juwana v. Community Health Services

Juwana Berry, an employee, sought additional medical benefits for a repetitive motion injury to her right wrist, forearm, and elbow from her employer, Community Health Services. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Nashville, presided over by Chief Judge Kenneth M. Switzer, reviewed the case without an evidentiary hearing. The central issue was whether Ms. Berry's injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of employment, entitling her to medical benefits. The Court found that the authorized treating physician, Dr. Paul Abbey, could not state with reasonable medical certainty that the condition was primarily work-related, and other medical opinions concurred. Consequently, Ms. Berry failed to satisfy her burden of proof, and her request for medical benefits was denied.

Expedited HearingMedical Benefits DenialCausation StandardRepetitive Motion InjuryRight Wrist PainDeQuervain's TendonitisMedical Certainty RequirementAuthorized Treating Physician OpinionBurden of Proof EmployeeAdmissibility of Documents
References
2
Case No. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. 2015-06-0419
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2016

McDade, Derrick v. Labor Ready

Derrick L. McDade, Sr. filed an Expedited Hearing Request for medical and temporary partial disability benefits after being struck by a vehicle on June 4, 2015, while on a paid break from his job at Labor Ready. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims at Chattanooga, presided over by Judge Thomas Wyatt, reviewed the case based on file documents. Despite the employer's contention that Dr. Nevels deemed the injury non-compensable, the court interpreted Dr. Nevels' comment as related to the injury occurring during a break, which Tennessee law considers compensable. The Court found Mr. McDade likely to prevail, granting him medical benefits and temporary partial disability benefits of $128.70 per week from July 20, 2015, until his return to work or maximum medical improvement.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Partial DisabilityAutomobile AccidentWorkplace InjuryPaid BreakScope of EmploymentCausationMedical OpinionLegal Precedent
References
10
Case No. 2015-03-0197
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2015

Gumm, Sara v. Buffalo Wild Wings

Ms. Sara M. Gumm, an employee, sought medical and temporary disability benefits for a left knee injury allegedly sustained at Buffalo Wild Wings. The employer, represented by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, disputed the claim, citing delayed injury reporting and lack of medical causation. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims, after reviewing the submitted records, found no merit in the employer's delay allegations. Based on the medical opinion of Dr. Brandon S. Asbury, who deemed the injury new and work-related, the Court concluded that Ms. Gumm was likely to prevail. Consequently, the Court granted the employee's request for medical benefits and temporary disability benefits for the period from May 29, 2015, to July 7, 2015, at a weekly rate of $127.20.

Workers' CompensationKnee InjuryTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingCausationEmployment InjuryNotice of InjuryRecord ReviewTennessee Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walter Word v. Metro Air Services, Inc.

This interlocutory appeal addresses the subject matter jurisdiction of a trial court in a workers' compensation case, specifically concerning the premature filing of a complaint. The employee, Walter Word, filed a complaint seeking benefits before the "time noted" on the Benefit Review Conference Report. The Supreme Court clarified that workers' compensation actions require exhaustion of the benefit review conference process, defined by the "date and time noted on the Report" issued by a Workers’ Compensation Specialist. The court held that an unambiguous time stamp on a complaint cannot be impeached by extrinsic evidence. Therefore, the trial court's denial of the employer's motion to dismiss was reversed, and the lawsuit was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationSubject Matter JurisdictionPremature FilingBenefit Review ConferenceExhaustion of Administrative RemediesTime StampInterlocutory AppealMotion to DismissJudicial ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esposito v. Regan

Petitioner, a police officer from the Nassau County Police Department, sought accidental disability retirement benefits due to back injuries sustained in duty-related accidents in 1979, 1982, and 1985. The respondent denied the application. A Hearing Officer found the incidents were not 'accidents' as defined by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363, and that the petitioner did not prove permanent inability to perform restricted duty. Upon review, the court confirmed the Hearing Officer's findings, concluding that the injuries arose from routine duties rather than unexpected events, thus not qualifying for accidental disability benefits. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Accidental Disability Retirement BenefitsPolice OfficerBack InjuryDuty-Related AccidentRetirement and Social Security LawArticle 78 ProceedingCredibility DeterminationRoutine DutiesUnexpected EventPermanent Disability
References
5
Case No. 2016-05-0519
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2016

Foster, Randy v. Gold Street Automotive, LLC

Randy Foster, the employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing (REH) seeking workers' compensation benefits from his employer, Gold Street Automotive, LLC, for an alleged left shoulder injury sustained in mid-January 2016. The employee requested a ruling based on a file review without an evidentiary hearing. The Court found that Mr. Foster failed to provide sufficient expert medical evidence linking his rotator cuff tear to his employment with Gold Street. Additionally, the Court determined he did not provide enough evidence to establish entitlement to a panel of physicians. Consequently, the Court denied his request for reimbursement of medical expenses and temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingShoulder InjuryRotator Cuff TearCausationMedical EvidenceBurden of ProofDenial of BenefitsUninsured Employer's FundTennessee Law
References
5
Case No. 23-0273, 23-0950
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2025

Accident Fund Insurance Company of America and Texas Cotton Ginners' Trust v. Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Justice Young, joined by Justice Sullivan, concurs in the denial of two petitions for review, acknowledging their significant statutory-interpretation questions and implications for the role of administrative agencies versus courts. The first petition (No. 23-0273) was a facial challenge by Accident Fund Insurance Company and Texas Cotton Ginners’ Trust against the Texas Department of Insurance regarding a rule on supplemental income benefits. The court found this challenge unsuitable as it presented no concrete example of the rule directly contravening the statute. The second petition (No. 23-0950) by Accident Fund General Insurance Company challenged lifetime income benefits awarded to Rodrigo Mendiola for severe burn injuries and loss of hand function. Accident Fund argued the lower courts used an outdated judicial standard instead of current statutory law. However, the court denied review because Mendiola's injuries qualified for benefits under both standards, rendering the choice between them non-outcome-determinative. Justice Young emphasized that this denial does not reflect a settled view on these issues, which may warrant review in future, more suitable cases with clearer records.

Workers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewPetition for ReviewSupplemental Income BenefitsLifetime Income BenefitsFacial ChallengeWorkers' Compensation ProgramSupreme Court of Texas
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 15,803 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