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

Majid v. Fielitz

Abdul Majid, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against correctional officers Ralph Fielitz and Robert Acken, alleging assault during his transfer and subsequent fraudulent concealment of evidence. Defendants moved in limine to exclude evidence related to the fraudulent concealment claims, contending its irrelevance to disputed facts and its prejudicial effect. The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, denied the motion. The decision states that the evidence is relevant to the issue of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations regarding Acken's identity, which is an issue for the court to resolve, not a jury. A subsequent Rule 403 determination will be made if equitable tolling is found.

Inmate RightsPrison AssaultFraudulent ConcealmentEquitable TollingStatute of Limitations42 U.S.C. 1983Correctional FacilityVideo EvidenceMotion in LimineFederal Procedure
References
18
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rathmell v. Morrison

John A. Rathmell appealed a $3,000,000 judgment rendered against him in a bill of review proceeding initiated by his former wife, Mary Ann Rathmell Morrison, concerning their 1975 divorce decree and property settlement. Morrison alleged that Rathmell misrepresented the value of their community-owned insurance companies, concealed pre-divorce sale negotiations, and coerced her into signing the settlement agreement. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that a single disjunctive jury issue regarding fraud, coercion, or failure to disclose material facts was improperly submitted and too broad. While upholding the trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and the sufficiency of Morrison's pleadings, the court ruled that the value attributed to personal goodwill and future efforts should be excluded from the companies' valuation. The court also held that evidence of subsequent sale price was admissible but found no evidence of wrongful concealment regarding pre-divorce sale negotiations.

DivorceProperty SettlementBill of ReviewExtrinsic FraudCommunity PropertyBusiness ValuationProfessional GoodwillJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewMarital Assets
References
36
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. W2010-01687-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision

State of Tennessee v. Ledarren S. Hawkins

Ledarren Hawkins appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and tampering with physical evidence. The Supreme Court affirmed his murder conviction, agreeing that the evidence did not warrant a jury instruction on defense of a third person, as Hawkins consistently testified he acted in self-defense. However, the Court reversed his conviction for tampering with physical evidence, ruling that tossing his shotgun over a short fence in plain view was "mere abandonment" and not "concealment" as defined by Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-16-503(a)(1). The Court found that Hawkins' actions did not materially impede the investigation or impair the evidence's value.

First Degree MurderTampering with Physical EvidenceSelf-DefenseDefense of a Third PersonJury InstructionsAbandonment DoctrineCriminal LawStatutory InterpretationDeadly ForceGang Violence
References
75
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 1975

Abeyta v. Travelers Insurance Co.

In this workers' compensation case, the plaintiff challenged the jury's findings that his injury was not the producing cause of any total or partial incapacity. He also contended that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of unemployment compensation benefits. The plaintiff sustained an injury on June 28, 1974, while working for W. D. Turner Construction Company, but medical examinations showed no objective findings of injury and he returned to work. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the jury's decision was supported by ample evidence and that any error in admitting evidence of unemployment benefits was harmless.

Workers' CompensationSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsProducing CauseIncapacityUnemployment BenefitsAdmissibility of EvidenceHarmless ErrorMedical EvidenceEmployment History
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 15,181 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