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

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Argonaut Southwest Insurance Co. v. Pollan

This case concerns a worker's compensation claim filed by J. E. Pollan (appellee) against Argonaut Southwest Insurance Company (appellant) after Pollan sustained injuries on April 22, 1965. Pollan sought benefits for injuries to his left ankle, toe, and back. The jury awarded Pollan $6,457.06, finding total disability followed by permanent partial disability, with injuries to his back and left little toe as producing causes. Argonaut Southwest Insurance Company appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for the back injury and general disability, and challenging the admission of character evidence for Pollan. The appellate court found the admission of character evidence without proper predicate to be reversible error, and consequently, reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationCharacter EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceReversalRemandJury VerdictSpecial IssuesDisabilitySpecific InjuryGeneral Injury
References
7
Case No. 03-97-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1999

A. James Lynn v. Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas

A. James Lynn appealed from a trial court judgment that affirmed an order by the Board of Law Examiners of the State of Texas. The Board found that Lynn did not possess the good moral character required for admission to the Bar of Texas, citing his engagement in the unauthorized practice of law, a public reprimand from the Texas State Board of Public Accountancy, and violations of HUD regulations. The Travis County District Court affirmed the Board's order. On appeal, Lynn raised ten issues, including claims regarding the lack of substantial evidence, rational connection of character traits, constitutionality of the unauthorized practice of law statute, res judicata, right to a jury trial, and due process. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, overruled all of Lynn's issues, finding that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and that there was a clear and rational connection between Lynn's character traits and his fitness to practice law. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Bar AdmissionMoral CharacterUnauthorized Practice of LawProfessional MisconductCertified Public AccountantHUD RegulationsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessRes Judicata
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell v. State

The appellant appeals a murder conviction, challenging the admissibility of his written confession and the exclusion of testimony regarding the victim's character. The court found that the warnings provided for the confession complied with Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. art. 38.22(2)(a), despite slight language differences, thus overruling the first point of error. Regarding the character evidence, the court determined it was inadmissible under Tex.R.Crim.Evid. 404(a)(2) due to the absence of any overt aggressive act by the victim. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Murder ConvictionConfession AdmissibilityMiranda WarningsCriminal ProcedureEvidence LawCharacter TraitVictim AggressionVoluntary ManslaughterAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. West

This case involves an appeal by William West, who was convicted of first-degree murder. The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to scrutinize the sufficiency of the evidence. West claimed self-defense in the shooting of Sam Jones, alleging Jones attacked him with an iron bar. The court found ample evidence of malicious killing but insufficient proof of premeditation and deliberation required for first-degree murder. Consequently, the conviction was reduced to second-degree murder. The court also addressed the improper admission of character evidence regarding West's alleged prior threat to Jodie Copas, deeming it harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of malicious intent. Lastly, the jury instruction on concealment of evidence was found to be proper, and the challenge to the life sentence became moot due to the reduced conviction.

Criminal LawMurderFirst-degree murderSecond-degree murderSufficiency of evidencePremeditationDeliberationSelf-defenseCharacter evidenceAdmissibility of evidence
References
19
Case No. 04-0550
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2006

Fifth Club, Inc. and David A. West v. Roberto Ramirez

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed the liability of an employer for the acts of an independent contractor providing security services. The case stemmed from an incident at Club Rodéo where security guard David West, an independent contractor, injured Roberto Ramirez, who subsequently sued Fifth Club, Inc. (the owner) and West. Ramirez argued for vicarious liability against Fifth Club based on a "personal character exception" for security work, and alleged negligence and malice in West's hiring. The Court declined to adopt a distinct personal character exception, asserting that employer liability is governed by existing control or nondelegable duty exceptions. Finding insufficient evidence that Fifth Club controlled West's actions or was negligent/malicious in his hiring, the Court reversed the judgment against Fifth Club, Inc. However, the Court affirmed the award of future mental anguish damages against David West, finding sufficient evidence to support this claim.

Independent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityPersonal Character ExceptionSecurity ServicesNegligent HiringMaliceFuture Mental Anguish DamagesPremises LiabilityNondelegable DutyTortious Acts
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apresa v. Montfort Insurance Co.

Justice Larsen dissents, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff the opportunity to reopen evidence for a "simple, technical point essential to his case." The dissent highlights the second prong of the standard for reopening evidence under Tex.R.Civ.P. 270, emphasizing that discretion should be liberally exercised to fully develop a case in the interest of justice. Justice Larsen applies the four factors from Hill v. Melton: decisiveness, no undue delay, prevention of injustice, and diligence. The dissent concludes that the proffered testimony was decisive, its reception would not cause undue delay, and refusing it resulted in injustice, particularly in a workers' compensation case where laws should be liberally construed. The dissent also argues that the majority misapplies the diligence requirement, which should apply after a party rests and closes its case, not during the case-in-chief, especially when evidence had not yet been closed.

Appellate ProcedureReopening EvidenceTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionInterest of JusticeDiligence RequirementWorkers' Compensation LawTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureDissenting OpinionManifest Injustice
References
9
Case No. 08-01-00373-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2003

Reister, Roger v. State

Roger Reister was convicted of four counts of criminal solicitation of capital murder for the death of his wife, Lynn Armstrong Reister, and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, arguing the accomplice testimony was uncorroborated. The court reviewed extensive non-accomplice testimony, evidence of Reister's marital problems, an affair, and his financial motives, concluding that the combined evidence sufficiently connected him to the crime. The court also addressed and overruled several points of error regarding character evidence, crime scene photographs, admission of the autopsy report, and jury instructions on remuneration and reasonable doubt. The conviction was affirmed.

Criminal SolicitationCapital MurderSpousal MurderLife InsuranceAdulteryAccomplice TestimonyCorroborationEvidentiary ErrorRemunerationJury Charge
References
65
Case No. ADJ3156337 (FRE 0209931) ADJ4199467 (FRE 0209932)
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

FRANK FLORES vs. NICKEL'S PAYLESS STORES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for a 1999 right foot and ankle injury, specifically addressing the defendant's claims of error in permanent disability calculation without apportionment and the exclusion of medical evidence. The Board intends to admit the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports into evidence, which the WCJ had previously excluded. This decision will allow the Board to review all relevant medical evidence before making a final determination on apportionment and the applicant's claimed injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and OrderMinutes of Hearing
References
0
Case No. ADJ8518632
Regular
May 09, 2017

HORACIO MONTOYA vs. CBC FRAMING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, A B GALLAGHER BASSETT

The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a prior WCJ order compelling a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Removal was granted because the WCJ's order was based on a medical report that had not been formally admitted into evidence, preventing meaningful review. The Board will now admit the defendant's medical report into evidence for the limited purpose of determining the Petition for Removal. This action is an extraordinary remedy due to the prejudice caused by relying on unadmitted evidence.

RemovalFunctional Capacity EvaluationIndustrial InjuryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdmitted EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluationExhibit AAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Removal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 15,121 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