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

Security Mut. Casualty Co. v. Bolton

James Bolton, an employee of Fort Worth Cotton Mill, died after reportedly straining himself while loading heavy sacks, leading to a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Statutes. His minor children, Clarence and Carroll Bolton, represented by J. L. and Mrs. L. A. Bolton, sued Security Mutual Casualty Company. Expert medical testimony debated whether Bolton suffered from angina pectoris, with doctors offering opinions based on hypothetical facts. The jury found that Bolton received an injury during his duties which directly resulted in his death. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case, citing errors in jury instructions concerning the specificity of the alleged injury and the definitions of 'direct cause' and 'contributing cause'.

Workers' CompensationIndustrial AccidentHeart ConditionCausationJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewReversed and RemandedTexas LawOccupational InjuryMedical Expert Testimony
References
15
Case No. 01-13-01062-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2014

Brenda Herbert, the Estate of Henry Bolton and Ruby Bolton v. Laura Urbina

This document is a motion for rehearing filed by Brenda Herbert, Henry Bolton Estate, and Ruby Bolton (Appellants) against Laura Urbina (Appellee). The appellants contend that the appellate court erred in its prior decision by finding legal sufficiency, arguing that an unambiguous contract existed between the parties for Laura Urbina's compensation. They assert that Laura Urbina certified her hours weekly and was paid accordingly, making her later handwritten claims for more hours inadmissible parol evidence. The appellants also argue that the appellate court incorrectly stated they failed to file a post-trial motion challenging factual insufficiency. They seek to reverse the trial court's judgment which awarded Laura Urbina additional compensation.

Contract DisputeWage DisputeEmployment LawParol Evidence RuleContract InterpretationLegal SufficiencyFactual InsufficiencyMotion for RehearingTexas Court of AppealsAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bolton Broadcasting Ltd. v. Meredith Corp.

The plaintiff, Bolton Broadcasting, Ltd., sued Meredith Corporation and MMT Sales, Inc., alleging breach of contract, inducement of breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, and violations of federal antitrust laws (Sherman Act § 1, Clayton Act § 3 and § 7). The defendants moved to dismiss the antitrust claims for failure to state claims. The court found that Bolton failed to adequately define the relevant market for antitrust purposes in all three counts. Consequently, the second count was dismissed, and the first and third counts were dismissed without prejudice, allowing Bolton to refile with cured deficiencies. The court also suggested that Bolton consider addressing its contract claims to state courts if the antitrust claims were not meritorious.

Antitrust LawSherman ActClayton ActBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceMotion to DismissExclusive DealershipMarket DefinitionRule 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
0
Case No. 2016-03-1065
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Bolton, Justin v. Helix, Inc.

Justin Bolton, an employee of Helix, Inc., sought additional medical benefits for a work-related right shoulder injury. His authorized treating physician, Dr. Michael Mackay, recommended arthroscopic surgery, but this was denied after a utilization review by Dr. Gregory Goldsmith and subsequently affirmed by Dr. Robert B. Snyder, Jr. At an expedited hearing, Judge Pamela B. Johnson weighed the opinions, giving greater credence to Dr. Mackay's findings due to his direct examination of Mr. Bolton. The court found that Drs. Goldsmith's and Snyder's opinions failed to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded to the authorized treating physician. Consequently, the court granted Mr. Bolton's request for the recommended surgery, holding Helix responsible for the associated medical expenses.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsShoulder InjuryArthroscopyUtilization ReviewTreating PhysicianObjective FindingsPresumption of CorrectnessEmployer Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bolton v. CNA Insurance Co.

Jerry Bolton, a heavy equipment operator, suffered a work-related injury in 1988, leading to complaints of neck and back pain. The Chancellor initially awarded him 60% permanent partial disability benefits and future medical expenses. The defendant, CNA Insurance Company, appealed, arguing against the inclusion of a physical therapist's opinion in determining permanent disability and questioning the causation due to a subsequent automobile accident. The Supreme Court affirmed that the work-related injury was the cause of Bolton's permanent disability, despite the intervening accident. However, the Court ruled that a physical therapist is not qualified to assess permanent impairment or physical restrictions. Consequently, the court found the evidence preponderated against the 60% disability award and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the extent of permanent partial disability.

Worker's Compensation AppealPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Expert CompetencyPhysical Therapist TestimonyVocational Disability AssessmentCausation of InjuryAutomobile Accident ImpactAMA Guidelines ApplicationScope of Practice LawMedical Impairment Rating
References
12
Case No. ADJ7324170 ADJ9797150
Regular
Apr 19, 2016

BEVERLY BOLTON vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant County of San Bernardino's petition for reconsideration of a January 29, 2016 decision. The WCAB requires further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future correspondence related to this reconsideration must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco, not with any district office or via e-filing. Any proposed settlements must be promptly communicated to the WCAB, as trial judges cannot act on them while reconsideration is pending.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)WCJProposed SettlementRules of the Administrative Director
References
0
Case No. ADJ7324170, ADJ9797150
Regular
May 10, 2016

Beverly Bolton vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the WCJ's finding that the applicant was entitled to requested medical treatment due to the employer's untimely utilization review. The employer argued the request was defective and the review was timely. The Board dismissed the employer's Petition for Removal and, after reconsideration, amended the Findings and Award. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the utilization review was untimely, thus waiving objections to the request, but deferred the issue of medical necessity due to an insufficient record.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationUtilization ReviewTimelinessRequest for Authorization (RFA)JurisdictionMedical NecessityRemovalAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Petition for Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ3736897 (RIV 0044021)
Regular
Apr 07, 2014

TERESA BOLTON vs. PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted the lien claimant's petitions for removal, finding the defendant's petition for reconsideration untimely. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order vacating a prior minute order that required the defendant to pay $300 to the lien claimant. Consequently, the November 27, 2013 minute order, requiring the defendant to pay the costs, was reinstated. The defendant's petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely.

Petition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWCJ AuthorityMinute OrderLien ClaimantCosts AwardRescinded OrderReinstated OrderAppeals Board
References
6
Case No. ADJ4016735 (BAK 0147536)
Regular
Jun 11, 2012

COLLEEN PARHAM vs. KERN RADIOLOGY MEDICAL GROUP, LEGION INSURANCE GROUP

This case involves an applicant seeking bilateral knee replacement surgery due to an admitted industrial back injury. The applicant argues the surgery is necessary to enable further treatment for her back, specifically a spinal cord stimulator. The defendants contested this, claiming the knee condition was independent and unrelated to the industrial injury. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the knee surgery reasonably required to relieve the industrial back injury, citing *Bolton* and *Rowan*, even if the knee condition itself was not industrial. The Board rescinded prior findings, awarding the knee surgery and deferring issues of permanent disability and temporary disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactBilateral Knee ReplacementIndustrial InjuryBack InjurySpinal Cord StimulatorTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical Evaluator
References
8
Case No. M2020-01651-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2022

Trevor Adamson v. Sarah E. Grove

Plaintiff Trevor Adamson filed a defamation lawsuit against Sarah E. Grove, Deborah Ann Sangetti, and Karl S. Bolton, which he voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. The defendants then filed a motion to alter or amend the dismissal and a petition to dismiss with prejudice under the Tennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA), seeking attorney fees and sanctions. The trial court granted the defendants' petition, dismissing the case with prejudice and awarding $15,000 in attorney fees and $24,000 in sanctions. Adamson appealed, challenging the trial court's jurisdiction after the nonsuit. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the defendants' TPPA petition because it was filed after the voluntary nonsuit, and no exceptions to the nonsuit rule applied. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order, vacated the dismissal with prejudice and awards, and remanded the case for entry of an order granting Adamson's request to dismiss without prejudice.

DefamationVoluntary DismissalNonsuitAnti-SLAPP LawTennessee Public Participation Act (TPPA)Subject Matter JurisdictionAttorney FeesSanctionsAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
73
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