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
Mar 20, 1981

Claim of Sandles v. Suffolk County Police Department

Claimant sustained compensable injuries in 1961, and their compensation case was closed in 1963 pending the outcome of a third-party action. Travelers Insurance Co., the compensation carrier, was aware of the third-party action and reduced its lien, leading to a settlement in 1968. After the case was reopened in 1977 due to recurring back problems, Travelers argued that it had not consented to the third-party settlement, barring further compensation under Workers' Compensation Law § 29, and that the Special Fund for Reopened Cases should be liable under § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board rejected both arguments, finding implied consent from Travelers based on evidence of lien reduction and correspondence, and determining that the original case closing was not a true closing for purposes of § 25-a. The appellate court affirmed the board's findings, concluding they were supported by substantial evidence.

Third-Party Action SettlementCarrier ConsentLien ReductionCase ReopeningSpecial Fund LiabilitySection 29 WCLSection 25-a WCLImplied ConsentFactual QuestionSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Wade

This appeal concerns a workmen's compensation suit initiated by Ettie Mae Wade et al. against Texas Employers Insurance Association, seeking compensation for Henry G. Wade's death, allegedly caused by employment injuries at Dow Chemical Company. A jury found for the appellees, awarding a lump sum. The appellant challenged the admission of hearsay testimony under the res gestae rule and argued improper and inflammatory statements by appellees' counsel during closing arguments. While the court upheld the trial court's discretion on the res gestae issue, it found portions of the closing argument to be prejudicial and improper. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial due to these errors in counsel's argument.

Workmen's CompensationAccidental DeathIndustrial Accident BoardHearsay Rule ExceptionRes GestaeAttorney MisconductClosing ArgumentJury PrejudiceReversible ErrorTrial Court Discretion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. State

Jimmy Dee Wilson was convicted of murder and sentenced to sixty years' imprisonment for killing Butch Monday, the husband of his long-term mistress, Terri Monday. On appeal, Wilson raised several points of error, including improper statements by the State during closing arguments, failure to exclude witness testimony, sufficiency of the evidence, errors in the trial court's jury charge regarding sudden passion and apparent danger, and the admission of evidence of extraneous offenses or bad acts (telephone harassment, drug sales, treatment of Terri's children, carrying a handgun, and worker's compensation fraud). The appellate court addressed each point, finding no merit in Wilson's arguments. Specifically, it found the State's closing arguments permissible, the witness testimony properly admitted (or error harmless), and the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. The court also determined that the jury charge adequately covered apparent danger and that, while the admission of testimony regarding Wilson selling Vicodin to Terri was erroneous, it did not substantially influence the jury's verdict. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

MurderCriminal AppealSelf-defense ArgumentSudden Passion DefenseJury Argument ProprietyWitness ExclusionEvidence Sufficiency ReviewJury Charge ErrorExtraneous OffensesRule 403
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lane v. Tompkins County Sheriff's Department

This case involves an appeal from two decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's compensation case. The primary issue is whether the June 9, 1971 closing of the claimant’s case, pending the outcome of a third-party action, constituted a 'true closing' to extend the time for filing a reimbursement claim from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8). The employer argued that the Board erred in applying a rigid 'true closing' requirement and that the finding of no true closing lacked substantial evidence. The court rejected both arguments, affirming the Board's decisions. It held that the standards for 'true closing' developed under other sections are applicable and that the Board's finding was rational since the closing contemplated further proceedings.

Workers CompensationSpecial Disability FundTrue ClosingThird-Party ActionReimbursement ClaimAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionFactual DeterminationStatutory InterpretationSection 15(8)
References
2
Case No. 09-06-180 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2007

in Re Commitment of Michael Marks

Michael Marks appealed a civil commitment order issued under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, after a jury found him to be a sexually violent predator. Marks challenged the trial court's exclusion of his expert witnesses, Dr. Jason Dunham and psychotherapist Sara Smith, citing improper disclosure and the failure to hold a gatekeeper hearing for the State's expert, Dr. Michael Arambula. He also alleged improper closing arguments by the State. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Marks failed to timely disclose expert testimony, did not properly request a gatekeeper hearing, and waived objections to the closing arguments.

Civil CommitmentSexually Violent Predator ActExpert Witness ExclusionDiscovery RulesGatekeeper HearingClosing ArgumentAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureMental IllnessSchizoaffective Disorder
References
16
Case No. 06-06-00001-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2006

Marvin Wayne Sneed v. State

Marvin Wayne Sneed appealed his conviction for sexual assault of a child and indecency with a child, challenging the trial court's decision to replace a juror, admit the complainant's prior testimony, and restrict closing arguments. The appellate court found that replacing a juror with an alternate, while statutorily erroneous, was a nonconstitutional error that did not affect substantial rights. Similarly, the admission of the complainant's entire prior testimony, though an error under the rule of optional completeness, was deemed harmless given the extensive corroborating evidence. The court upheld the restriction on closing arguments due to the appellant's failure to make an offer of proof. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Criminal AppealJuror ReplacementAlternate JurorPrior TestimonyHearsay RuleRule of Optional CompletenessHarmless ErrorClosing ArgumentAppellate ReviewSexual Assault
References
42
Case No. 01-10-00185-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2011

Michael Conti and Rainbow Conti v. Department of Family and Protective Services

The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights for Michael and Rainbow Conti to their child E.C. The Contis appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for termination, an abused discretion in denying a motion for continuance, and improper closing arguments by opposing counsel. The court found that the Contis failed to challenge all grounds for termination and that substantial evidence supported the finding that termination was in E.C.'s best interest, citing Michael's prior indecency conviction and sexual abuse of another child in the home, which Rainbow failed to protect against. The court also determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding the continuance motions or the objections to closing arguments, given the procedural history and the latitude afforded to trial counsel.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbuseSexual AbuseBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceMotion for ContinuanceIneffective Assistance of CounselClosing ArgumentsFamily LawAppellate Review
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Commitment of Marks

Michael Marks appealed a civil commitment order classifying him as a sexually violent predator under the Texas Health and Safety Code. Marks challenged the trial court's exclusion of testimony from two defense witnesses, Dr. Jason Dunham and Sara Smith, who were intended to rebut the State's expert, Dr. Michael Arambula, on the issue of Marks feigning mental illness. Marks also contested the trial court's refusal to conduct a "gatekeeper hearing" for Dr. Arambula's testimony and alleged improper influence from the State's closing argument. The appellate court affirmed the commitment order, ruling that Marks failed to adhere to discovery rules for witness disclosure, made an untimely request for a gatekeeper hearing, and did not preserve error regarding the closing argument.

Sexually Violent PredatorCivil CommitmentExpert TestimonyWitness ExclusionDiscovery ViolationsAppellate ProcedureGatekeeper DoctrineClosing Argument ErrorMental HealthMalingering
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1951

Wade v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INS. ASS'N

This case concerns a Workmen's Compensation claim filed by Wade et al. against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association following the death of Henry G. Wade, attributed to chlorine gas inhalation during his employment at Dow Chemical Company. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, citing improper closing arguments by the petitioners' counsel. The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the objection to the argument was timely and if the argument's effect was "curable." The Court ultimately found that any potential error in the argument was waived due to the respondent's delay in objecting. Additionally, the Court affirmed the admissibility of Mr. Wade's declarations as res gestae. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and affirmed the original trial court judgment.

Workmen's CompensationIndustrial AccidentChlorine Gas InhalationBronchial PneumoniaClosing ArgumentJury ArgumentWaiver of ObjectionCurable ErrorIncurable ErrorRes Gestae
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McCowen v. St. Johnsbury Trucking

The claimant suffered a compensable injury in March 1986. The Workers' Compensation Board initially awarded benefits and closed the case in June 1988, but later reopened it in September 1988 to assess further disability. In February 1991, the employer's insurance carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, but this claim was dismissed by the Board for untimely filing. On appeal, the carrier argued that the case reopening extended its filing period under Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (8) (f). The court, however, found this argument unpersuasive, concluding that the initial case closing was not a 'true closing' and thus the carrier's claim was not filed within the required 104 weeks from the date of disability. Consequently, the Board's decision to dismiss the claim as untimely was affirmed.

BenefitsSpecial Disability FundTimely FilingCase ReopeningStatute of LimitationsBoard DecisionInsurance Carrier ReimbursementCompensable InjuryAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 3,605 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