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

Claim of Schwartz v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed April 25, 2012, ruled that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to her established work-related stress claim. The second decision, filed May 2, 2012, denied her payment for intermittent lost time. The court affirmed both decisions, finding that the employer's independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions regarding cardiac conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's determination that the claimant's Friday absences were for convenience, not disability, was also upheld by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealsCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyEnlarged Left AtriumWork-Related StressAdjustment DisorderIntermittent Lost Time Benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheerer v. City of Tonawanda

A claimant's husband, a laborer and driver, died of cardiac arrest, leading to a workers’ compensation claim established by the Board. The self-insured employer sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, arguing that the decedent's preexisting arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease hindered his employability. The Board denied this application, finding insufficient evidence that the condition hindered or was likely to hinder his employment potential. The employer appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the lack of evidence that the decedent's undiagnosed condition affected his work or recreational activities. The court also highlighted that medical opinions stated most cardiac arrest sufferers are at rest or engaged in minimal activity. Ultimately, the court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding that the condition was not a hindrance to employment.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting ConditionEmployabilityCardiac ArrestArteriosclerotic Cardiovascular DiseaseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
5
Case No. 2015-01-0023, 2018-01-0003, 2018-01-0008
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2019

Johnston, Johnny v. Siskin Steel & Supply Co./Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co.

Johnny Johnston, an employee of Siskin Steel & Supply Co./Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. for nearly 40 years, filed claims for liver, cardiac, and kidney conditions, alleging occupational exposure to heavy metals. The court consolidated three claims related to different dates of injury but the same occupational exposure. The primary issue was whether his conditions arose primarily out of and in the course of employment. The court, after considering conflicting expert testimonies, found that Mr. Johnston's work exposed him to heavy-metal contaminants, which accumulated in his system and primarily caused his liver, cardiac, and kidney conditions. Consequently, the court awarded Mr. Johnston medical benefits for ongoing treatment and permanent partial disability benefits amounting to 265.5 weeks or $172,832.00, to be paid in weekly or biweekly installments.

Occupational DiseaseHeavy Metal ExposureLiver DiseaseCardiac DiseaseKidney DiseasePermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation AwardExpert Medical TestimonyCausation AnalysisHair Test Reliability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. 2-09-265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. v. Shelby Jackson

Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. appealed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. The appellants contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish DTPA violations, economic damages, an unconscionable act by Norris, mental anguish damages, and entitlement to treble damages or attorney's fees. The trial court found that Avery violated the DTPA by misrepresenting rights and failing to disclose information, causing $500 in economic damages, which were trebled. It also found Norris committed an unconscionable act intentionally, causing $2,500 in mental anguish damages, also trebled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all findings.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActEconomic DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesContract ModificationConsumer ProtectionTexas Law
References
46
Case No. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
Case No. 07-15-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2016

Mohammed Fawwaz Shoukfeh, M.D., P.A., D/B/A Texas Cardiac Center v. James G. Grattan and Texas Workforce Commission

Dr. Grattan filed a wage claim against Mohammed Fawwaz Shoukfeh, M.D., P.A., d/b/a Texas Cardiac Center (TCC) under the Texas Payday Act, alleging miscalculation of his pro rata share of overhead expenses. The dispute arose because TCC included Dr. Qaddour's salary in overhead but excluded him from the pro rata division among physicians for expense calculation. After various appeals, the Texas Workforce Commission ultimately awarded Dr. Grattan $125,988.81 in unpaid wages. TCC then sought a trial de novo, where the 99th District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Grattan and the TWC. The Seventh District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was substantial evidence that Dr. Grattan's employment agreement did not permit TCC to deduct more than a pro rata share based on all physicians employed.

Wage claimTexas Payday ActEmployment agreementOverhead expensesPro rata shareSummary judgmentAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceContract interpretationPhysician compensation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Wallace v. Nestles Chocolate Co.

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying death benefits for her decedent, a forklift operator who died post-surgery for a work-related hand injury. The decedent experienced respiratory and cardiac arrest due to myocardial infarction, exacerbated by pre-existing conditions and inadequate postoperative care. The Board concluded the death was not causally related to the compensable injury. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that while the surgery provided the occasion for inadequate treatment, it did not directly cause the death, which stemmed from the progression of his underlying cardiac condition.

Workers' CompensationMyocardial InfarctionPostoperative ComplicationsCausationPreexisting ConditionInadequate Medical CareAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionDeath BenefitsHand Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brown v. New York City Department of Correction

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying benefits for cardiomyopathy. The claimant argued that work-related stress caused hypertension, leading to his cardiac condition, and that the manifestation of his condition at work created a presumption of work-relatedness under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1). However, this issue was not raised before the Board and thus unpreserved for review. The court noted that the presumption applies to unwitnessed or unexplained accidents, which was not the case here. An impartial cardiologist found no causal link between the claimant's work and his cardiac distress, an opinion the Board credited over contrary medical evidence. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationCardiomyopathyHypertensionWork-Related StressCausal LinkMedical EvidenceImpartial Medical ExaminationPresumptionUnpreserved IssueAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 05-18-00564-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC v. Ralph Carrington D/B/A Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat , LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, Turpin and Turpin, Inc.

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC appealed the trial court's summary judgments in favor of Ralph Carrington d/b/a Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, and Turpin and Turpin, Inc. Regency argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Regency had no evidence of damages because its insurance carrier paid the underlying personal injury settlement and defense costs. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the collateral source rule does not apply to Regency under the facts of this case because Regency made no payments and received no payments from any other party. Furthermore, Regency's insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, failed to properly assert its subrogation rights or intervene in the lawsuit.

Summary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleInsurance CoverageSubrogation RightsBreach of ContractNegligenceIndemnityAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 4,289 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