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

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Rivera

This workers' compensation case involves Richard Rivera, an employee who suffered concurrent general (head) and specific (right leg) injuries. The jury initially awarded Rivera compensation for the combined effects of these injuries, leading to a judgment for general incapacity. Texas Employers Insurance Association (T.E.I.A.) appealed, contending the trial court erred by combining the effects of concurrent general and specific injuries, which violates Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306, § 12. The appellate court reviewed prior case law, including *Tex. Gen. Indem. Co. v. Scott* and *McCartney v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.*, clarifying that an employee cannot receive compensation for both specific and general injuries concurrently, but rather for the injury producing the longest period of incapacity or greatest benefits. The court found that the trial court erred in awarding damages for both combined injuries and sustained T.E.I.A.'s point of error, reversing the judgment and remanding the case with instructions for judgment consistent with the opinion, likely favoring the specific injury recovery.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent InjuriesGeneral InjurySpecific InjuryIncapacityTexas LawArticle 8306Jury InstructionsAppellate ReviewReversal
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harry v. University of Texas System

Justice McCollum concurs with the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case, but departs on the issue of broad form jury submission. The Appellant, Nelda Harry, complained that the trial court erred in conjunctively submitting the issues of injury and producing cause of incapacity, which placed an undue burden on her to prove incapacity for medical benefits. McCollum argues that Article 8306, section 7, entitles a worker to medical care for an injury regardless of incapacity, and the conjunctive submission was not feasible, constituting an abuse of discretion and resulting in an incomplete verdict. The opinion highlights the importance of disjunctive submission to ensure all claims for relief are properly adjudicated.

Jury SubmissionBroad Form SubmissionConjunctive SubmissionWorkers' CompensationMedical BenefitsIncapacity to LaborAbuse of DiscretionIncomplete VerdictTexas Civil ProcedureJury Charge
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Linger v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.

Claimant sustained permanent partial disabilities from two 1977 accidents and one 1980 accident, leading to separate awards from different employers and their respective insurance carriers. Initially, the claimant received concurrent benefits exceeding the statutory maximum rate. Upon discovering these concurrent payments, a joint hearing was held. An Administrative Law Judge apportioned the award, which was subsequently affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board, stating that concurrent awards exceeding the statutory maximum for a permanent partial disability were impermissible. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for a per-accident application of the statutory maximum. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, asserting that the Workers' Compensation Law establishes an overall maximum rate for permanent partial disability regardless of the number of accidents or employments.

Permanent Partial DisabilityConcurrent AwardsStatutory MaximumApportionmentMultiple AccidentsWage LossJudicial PrecedentAdministrative Law JudgeWorkers' Compensation BoardInsurance Carriers
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INS. ASS'N v. Mincey

This is a workmen's compensation case where the employee, Donald Wayne Mincey, recovered judgment for 260 weeks of total incapacity. The insurance carrier appealed, arguing that the court erred in failing to submit an issue on the beginning date of disability, in finding the incapacity began on September 9th, and in the phrasing of issue number one concerning accidental injury. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the beginning date of incapacity was undisputed, the issue on accidental injury was not duplicitous or multifarious as the 'accidental' element was surplusage, and the introduction of a notice of injury for impeachment was permissible. The court concluded that no reversible error was shown.

Workmen's CompensationTotal IncapacityJury IssuesBeginning Date of DisabilityAccidental InjuryDuplicitous IssuesMultifarious IssuesImpeachment EvidenceMedical EvidenceSchizophrenia Diagnosis
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hope v. Warren County Board of Elections

This case involves an appeal by a workers' compensation carrier regarding the calculation of a claimant's average weekly wage based on concurrent employment. The claimant, injured on November 3, 2009, had employment as a polling inspector and concurrently with a retail store. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers’ Compensation Board calculated the claimant's average weekly wage based on both employments, totaling $80.69, and directed the carrier to continue awards. The carrier appealed, arguing that awards should only be based on the primary employment wage of $3.56 due to the inability to seek reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for concurrent employment amounts following 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting the statutory language to mean that primary employers are liable for benefits calculated on combined average weekly wages, and the 2007 amendments did not intend to reduce benefits for injured workers.

Concurrent Employment BenefitsAverage Weekly Wage CalculationSpecial Disability Fund ClosureWorkers' Compensation Law § 14(6)Statutory Amendment ImpactEmployer Liability LimitsTemporary Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityAppellate Review of WCABLegislative Purpose Analysis
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simpson Electric Corp. v. Leucadia Inc.

The dissenting opinion by Spatt, J., challenges the majority's decision regarding concurrent state and federal jurisdiction over civil RICO claims. Justice Spatt argues that the established presumption of concurrent jurisdiction, as outlined in Gulf Offshore Co. v Mobil Oil Corp., has not been overcome by any explicit statutory directive, unmistakable legislative history, or clear incompatibility with federal interests. The opinion critically examines RICO's relationship with antitrust laws, highlighting the distinctions drawn in Sedima, S.P.R.L. v Imrex Co.. Furthermore, it asserts that New York state courts possess the necessary competence to adjudicate civil RICO actions, particularly given the prevalence of state law violations and common-law fraud as predicate acts. Concluding, the dissent emphasizes that the New York State Organized Crime Control Act (OCCA) does not preclude concurrent jurisdiction but rather complements existing anti-racketeering remedies.

Civil RICO ClaimsConcurrent JurisdictionState CourtsFederal CourtsRacketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ActLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationAntitrust Law AnalogyDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Foti-Crawford v. Buffalo General Hospital

A registered nurse sustained a back injury in July 1991 while concurrently employed by Buffalo General Hospital and Supplemental Health Care, leading to permanent partial disability. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits of $153.36 per week and ruled that the Special Disability Fund should reimburse the hospital's carrier for most of these benefits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The Fund appealed, contending that reimbursement was unwarranted as the benefits did not exceed the maximum amount the hospital would have paid without concurrent employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding its interpretation rational, especially given the claimant returned to work for the primary employer.

Workers' CompensationConcurrent EmploymentSpecial Disability FundReimbursementPermanent Partial DisabilityAverage Weekly WageAppellate ReviewBack InjuryNurseWorkers' Compensation Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Evers

M. W. Evers, an employee, suffered a 40% partial permanent incapacity to his right shoulder due to an injury sustained while working for Columbian Carbon Company. He was awarded compensation for 300 weeks from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. The insurance association appealed, challenging the compensation award primarily because Evers continued to work for approximately 52 weeks post-injury at his regular wage. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that continued employment, especially under necessity and with employer/colleague assistance, does not negate a claim for permanent partial incapacity under workmen's compensation law, which should be liberally construed. The court also addressed and rejected the appellant's points of error regarding jury findings and newly discovered evidence.

Workers' CompensationPartial Permanent IncapacityAppellate ReviewAffirmation of JudgmentEarning CapacityContinued EmploymentMedical TestimonyShoulder InjuryNew Trial MotionJury Verdict
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Sciame v. Airborne Express, Inc.

This case addresses the application of Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (6) (a) concerning the maximum weekly benefits a claimant can receive for concurrent schedule and nonschedule awards. The court reaffirms its established precedent that these concurrent payments cannot exceed the statutory cap of $400 per week for 2004 injuries, irrespective of whether the nonschedule award stems from a permanent disability. This principle was also extended to include periodic payments for a schedule loss of use award and nonschedule award payments for temporary disability. The court concluded that the 2009 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 15 and 25 did not indicate legislative intent to overturn this longstanding cap. Consequently, the Board's decision, which held that the claimant's receipt of maximum weekly benefits from a nonschedule award precluded additional benefits from a schedule loss of use award, was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsBenefit MaximumsConcurrent AwardsSchedule Loss of Use AwardNonschedule AwardStatutory CapJudicial Precedent AffirmationWorkers' Compensation Law Interpretation2009 Amendments AnalysisPermanent Disability Benefits
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 631 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