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. 04-15-00087-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2015

Estate of Shirley L. Benson

This is an appellant's brief challenging a trial court's decision to suspend a trustee and appoint co-receivers for the Shirley L. Benson Testamentary Trust. The appellant, Thomas Milton Benson, Jr., argues that the trial court's orders were an abuse of discretion due to a lack of evidence supporting a material breach of trust or irreparable harm. Furthermore, the appellant contends that the orders were issued without proper notice and violated due process, failing to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 683. The brief seeks reversal of the trial court's injunction and receivership orders.

Trust litigationTrustee removalReceivershipTemporary injunctionAbuse of discretionDue processNotice requirementsProbate courtTestamentary trustFiduciary duty
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benson v. Tennessee Valley Electric Cooperative

Jim Benson was injured in a product liability case while working in a bucket truck manufactured by TECO and sold by Hobbs Equipment Company. A weld in the boom unit failed, causing the bucket to drop. Benson and his wife, Shirley Benson, sued TECO and Hobbs for negligent design, manufacturing, failure to warn, and negligent repair. The jury found in favor of the Bensons, awarding Jim $160,000 and Shirley $25,000, attributing negligent design to TECO and negligent repair to Hobbs. The defendants appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, jury awards, evidentiary rulings, and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding material evidence to support the jury verdicts.

Product LiabilityNegligent DesignNegligent RepairWorker InjuryAerial DeviceWeld FailurePermanent ImpairmentCompensatory DamagesExpert Witness TestimonyMedical Examinations
References
23
Case No. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1979

Claim of Lennon v. Kaiser

The Workers’ Compensation Board reversed a referee’s decision, determining that on January 24, 1975, the claimant was an employee of partners Ralph Kaiser and William Benson, and sustained injuries during employment. Testimony revealed conflicts regarding the claimant’s employment status and duties. Kaiser stated he never met the claimant until the day of the incident and instructed him to stay on the ground, yet admitted to an oral partnership with Benson and sharing profits. The claimant, conversely, testified both partners gave him directions, with Kaiser telling him to push shingles, and Benson having previously paid him. Despite the conflicting accounts, the board's finding of employment and injury was affirmed due to substantial evidence in the record.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipPartnershipAccidentInjurySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewConflicting TestimonyRoofing BusinessEmployee Status
References
0
Case No. 2021-08-0148
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Benson, Roger v. Jones Bros. Contractors LLC

Roger Benson, an employee, filed a claim after sustaining physical and mental injuries when his machine was struck by a semi-truck. While his physical injuries reached maximum medical improvement, he continued to treat for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety with psychiatrist Dr. Melvin Goldin. Benson sought additional temporary disability benefits, arguing his mental injury arose from the work incident, a claim the employer, Jones Bros. Contractors LLC, denied based on MMI for physical injuries. The Court, however, determined that the mental injury stemmed directly from the identifiable work-related event, not primarily from the physical injuries. Thus, finding Benson had not reached MMI for his mental condition, the Court granted his request for approximately $20,978.56 in additional temporary disability benefits.

Expedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMental Injury ClaimPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Work-Related AccidentPsychiatric EvaluationCausationDriving RestrictionsTrauma
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. ADJ800932 (OAK 0299866) ADJ2725270 (OAK 0299867) ADJ635812 (OAK 0299868) ADJ4541817 (OAK 0308810)
Regular
Feb 16, 2010

JOAN STEPP vs. COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the previous award, and returned the case for further proceedings. The Board found the prior decision to be insufficient regarding apportionment of disability among multiple injuries as required by *Benson*. Additionally, the Board questioned the vocational expert's analysis for a finding of total permanent disability, as it did not adequately address retraining feasibility per *LeBoeuf*. The matter is remanded for the Agreed Medical Evaluator to provide clarified apportionment opinions and for a new decision consistent with *Benson* and *LeBoeuf*.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuriesCumulative TraumaPermanent Total DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorBensonLeBoeufVocational Expert
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benson v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Systems

Plaintiff Selina Benson filed a complaint against North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Systems and individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and marital status, along with retaliation and breach of implied contract, under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss various claims. The court dismissed most NYSHRL claims (except retaliatory discharge) due to the election of remedies doctrine, and similarly dismissed most §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986 claims against North Shore due to preclusion. Additionally, Title VII claims against individual defendants and those alleging sexual orientation discrimination were dismissed. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims as time-barred under the continuing violation doctrine and dismissed the implied breach of contract claim, while allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint to add a collective bargaining agreement claim.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSexual Orientation DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationBreach of Contract
References
42
Case No. FRE 213077; FRE 213078 FRE 194033; FRE 194034 FRE 194035
Regular
Mar 11, 2008

ROSA NUNEZ vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of a prior workers' compensation award for multiple injuries, including cumulative trauma and specific injuries. The Appeals Board rescinded the previous award, remanding the matter for further development of the record. The primary issue is the proper apportionment of permanent disability based on the causation standard established by SB 899 and the *Benson* decision, as prior medical reports lacked sufficient detail for this analysis.

ReconsiderationFindings of FactAward and OrdersStipulated AwardCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryPermanent DisabilityApportionmentFormula AFormula C
References
7
Case No. ADJ3566182 (SAL 0077480) ADJ2182459 (SAL 0064054) ADJ3789006 (SAL 0067540) ADJ3867926 (SAL 0067541) ADJ1537096 (SAL 0069548) ADJ3077033 (SAL 0090420) ADJ1445385 (SAL 0100034)
Regular
Nov 07, 2008

JOSE PADILLA vs. CAMPBELL'S FRESH, Permissibly SelfInsured and Adjusted By CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE COMPANY; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY; ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of the WCJ's decision, rescinding it due to an unresolved issue regarding permanent and stationary dates for the applicant's injuries. The WCJ's reliance on the *Benson* decision for separate permanent disability awards was questioned given that *Benson* was under appellate review. The case is returned to the WCJ to clarify whether the permanent and stationary dates for the various injuries are the same, and to await the appellate decision in *Benson* if they are.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersPermanent DisabilityReconsiderationCumulative TraumaAgreed Medical EvaluatorApportionmentBenson v. The Permanente Medical GroupWilkinson v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 442 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