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. NO. 03-06-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2009

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Samuel Campos, an employee, was injured on the job, leading to disputes over his impairment rating and reimbursement for travel expenses. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed a designated doctor's 6% impairment rating and denied travel expenses, which Campos challenged in court. The case involved the Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) because Campos's employer's insurer became impaired. Initially filed in Winkler County, the case was transferred to Travis County, where TPCIGA was granted summary judgment. The Third District Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, ruling that the Workers' Compensation Act's specific mandatory venue provision, which places venue in the county of the employee's residence at the time of injury (Winkler County), overrides the Guaranty Act's general venue provision, which would place it in Travis County. The court remanded the case with instructions to transfer it to Winkler County.

Workers' CompensationVenue DisputeMandatory VenueStatutory ConstructionTexas Labor CodeTexas Insurance CodeImpairment RatingTravel Expenses ReimbursementJudicial ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Catherine Layman sought workers' compensation benefits for cognitive impairment and a disfiguring scar after a work-related accident in November 1999 while employed by Vanguard Contractors. The drill she was using struck her head, causing a laceration that required fifty-five stitches and left a scar. The trial court found no cognitive impairment but initially miscalculated disfigurement benefits under the wrong statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of no cognitive impairment. However, it modified the disfigurement award, ruling it should be calculated under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(3)(E), limiting benefits to 200 weeks. The court awarded Layman a 20% vocational disability due to disfigurement, equating to forty weeks of permanent partial disability benefits. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the modified judgment.

Disfigurement BenefitsCognitive ImpairmentVocational DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityStatutory InterpretationMedical Impairment RatingEmployability AssessmentHead TraumaScar InjuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals
References
11
Case No. 03-06-00404-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2007

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case involves a restricted appeal filed by Johnnie M. Charles from a trial court's order dismissing her cause without prejudice. Charles initially appealed a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission decision regarding her impairment rating. After a venue transfer to Travis County, her case was dismissed for failure to pay filing fees. A nunc pro tunc order was later issued to correct a clerical error in the cause number of the original dismissal order. Charles appealed, citing errors in the dismissal, the lack of a court reporter, and the original hearing. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that Charles's challenges to the original dismissal were untimely and that no error occurred in the nunc pro tunc order, which merely corrected a clerical error without altering the original judgment's substance.

restricted appealdismissal without prejudicenunc pro tunc orderclerical errorwant of prosecutionappellate jurisdictiontimeliness of appealTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Appellate Procedureworkers' compensation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The Workers' Compensation Board's finding that the claimant remains unable to perform their prior employment duties as a chef, or those of a reasonable substitute, due to cognitive impairments, is supported by substantial evidence. This evidence includes the claimant's testimony and the opinion of a clinical neuropsychologist, who stated that the cognitive impairments prevent the claimant from working as a chef or military police officer. The Board's crediting of this evidence, which justified the finding of over 75% earning capacity loss, was upheld. The employer's argument that the Board applied an incorrect legal standard was rejected. The decision is affirmed.

cognitive impairmentsearning capacity lossdisability benefitsneuropsychologyoccupational injurymedical opinionappellate reviewsubstantial evidenceworkers' compensation lawemployment duties
References
5
Case No. ADJ1880234 (GOL 0097047)
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant suffered an admitted industrial injury from a slip and fall as a housekeeper. The defendant sought reconsideration of the findings of total permanent disability and injury to the "psyche, head, internal, and neurological/cognitive impairment." The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the ambiguity of the "internal" injury finding, which they found insufficiently specified. While affirming the total permanent disability finding and injury to psyche, head, and neurological/cognitive impairment, the Board rescinded the "internal" injury finding and returned the case for further proceedings to clarify the specific internal systems or conditions injured.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardIndustrial InjuryPsycheNeurological/Cognitive ImpairmentTotal Permanent DisabilityApportionmentHousekeeperSlip and Fall
References
1
Case No. 03-08-00483-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2010

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Doris J. Toberny, an exhibit decorator, injured her back on the job in May 2000, leading to spinal-fusion surgery that also corrected pre-existing scoliosis. Initially, her employer's insurer, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association for Reliance National Insurance Company ('the Company'), paid for the surgery. However, in December 2001, the Company disputed the claim, asserting the injury was only a lower back strain and not the cause of her scoliosis. After a designated doctor assigned Toberny a 25-percent impairment rating in 2002, the Company paid supplemental income benefits for eight quarters. Three years later, in September 2005, the Company sought to dispute her impairment rating and discontinue benefits, claiming her pre-existing conditions were not compensable. The Division of Workers’ Compensation and the district court found that the Company had waived its right to contest the impairment rating under former rule 130.102(g) due to late dispute filing, and affirmed Toberny's 25-percent impairment rating and entitlement to benefits. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the validity of rule 130.102(g) and the finding of waiver, thus confirming Toberny's impairment rating and attorney's fees.

Workers' CompensationImpairment Rating DisputeSupplemental Income BenefitsWaiver DoctrineCompensability of InjuryExtent of InjuryJudicial Review of Agency DecisionTexas Appeals CourtAdministrative Rule ValidityMaximum Medical Improvement
References
12
Case No. 2016-03-0413
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Deborah Dodson, an employee of LHC Group, injured her left ankle and right knee in May 2015. She underwent knee surgery and was placed at maximum medical improvement by Dr. Johnson. She later developed small fiber neuropathy, and despite a referral, faced difficulties obtaining a neurologic impairment evaluation. The Court granted Ms. Dodson's request for a neurologic impairment evaluation, either by Dr. Butler or another neurologist, referring Dr. Butler to the Penalty Program for failure to provide an impairment opinion. However, the Court denied her claim for additional temporary total disability benefits, finding she reached MMI on March 23, 2017, when Dr. Butler ceased active treatment.

Workers' CompensationNeurologic Impairment EvaluationTemporary Total Disability BenefitsMaximum Medical ImprovementSmall Fiber NeuropathyPain ManagementExpedited HearingMedical TreatmentImpairment RatingPenalty Program
References
3
Case No. ADJ10558753
Regular
Apr 25, 2018

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The applicant sought to set aside a Compromise and Release (C&R) settlement, alleging severe cognitive impairment at the time of signing. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of the original decision. The WCAB found that the physician's report, which formed the basis of the applicant's claim of impairment, was speculative as the physician was not present at the settlement. Furthermore, the WCAB deferred to the administrative law judge's credibility determination, who found the claims of incompetence not credible.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact & OrderCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseSet AsideGood CauseCognitive ImpairmentSubstantial EvidencePrimary Treating Physician
References
3
Case No. ADJ6619965 ADJ9843987
Regular
Jul 16, 2018

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Board granted reconsideration to review the finding of injury to the bladder, sleep disorder, sexual dysfunction, and cognitive disability/headaches, as well as the applicant's earnings. The Board affirmed the finding of injury to the bladder, sleep disorder, and sexual dysfunction but reversed the finding of injury related to cognitive impairment/headaches, finding insufficient medical evidence. Additionally, the Board amended the applicant's earnings to $270.00 per week, based on the parties' stipulation regarding the permanent disability rate, and affirmed the overall award except for these specific modifications.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings of FactAwardAdministrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityAverage Weekly EarningsStipulationAgreed Medical ExaminerQualified Medical Examiner
References
0
Case No. ADJ7449576
Regular
May 11, 2016

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case concerns an applicant seeking total permanent disability benefits based on a brain injury. The applicant argued for conclusive total disability under Labor Code section 4662(a)(4) due to permanent mental incapacity. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that while the applicant suffered serious psychiatric impairments leading to overall total disability, the specific cognitive impairments did not meet the threshold for the *conclusive* presumption of total disability under section 4662(a)(4). Therefore, apportionment was still applicable, and the previous award of $84\%$ permanent disability was upheld.

Permanent total disabilityLabor Code section 4662(a)(4)Conclusive presumptionApportionmentBrain injuryPermanent mental incapacityGlobal Assessment of Functioning ScaleCognitive impairmentPsychiatric impairmentCorrectional officer
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,270 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