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. 05-18-00564-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC v. Ralph Carrington D/B/A Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat , LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, Turpin and Turpin, Inc.

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC appealed the trial court's summary judgments in favor of Ralph Carrington d/b/a Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, and Turpin and Turpin, Inc. Regency argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Regency had no evidence of damages because its insurance carrier paid the underlying personal injury settlement and defense costs. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the collateral source rule does not apply to Regency under the facts of this case because Regency made no payments and received no payments from any other party. Furthermore, Regency's insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, failed to properly assert its subrogation rights or intervene in the lawsuit.

Summary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleInsurance CoverageSubrogation RightsBreach of ContractNegligenceIndemnityAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Schwartz v. State Insurance Fund

Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions. The first decision, filed April 25, 2012, ruled that her alleged cardiac conditions were not causally related to her established work-related stress claim. The second decision, filed May 2, 2012, denied her payment for intermittent lost time. The court affirmed both decisions, finding that the employer's independent medical examiner complied with Workers' Compensation Law § 137, and the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions regarding cardiac conditions was supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the Board's determination that the claimant's Friday absences were for convenience, not disability, was also upheld by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealsCausally Related DisabilityCardiac ConditionsHypertensionMitral Valve InsufficiencyTricuspid Valve InsufficiencyEnlarged Left AtriumWork-Related StressAdjustment DisorderIntermittent Lost Time Benefits
References
4
Case No. 2016-06-1429
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2017

Jackson, Eldon B. v. Express Services, Inc

Mr. Eldon B. Jackson sought payment for past medical expenses through an expedited hearing, claiming a recurrence of costochondritis was caused by his work for Express Services, Inc. The employer argued the injury was not primarily work-related and costochondritis was a pre-existing condition. The Court found Mr. Jackson failed to provide expert medical proof establishing a causal link between his employment and the condition's recurrence, which is required for non-obvious cases. Furthermore, Mr. Jackson also failed to present the actual medical bills for which he sought payment. Consequently, the Court denied his request for reimbursement of medical expenses but allowed for the possibility of presenting additional proof in the future.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesExpedited HearingCostochondritisCausationPre-existing ConditionExpert Medical ProofTennesseeMisdiagnosisAortic Dissection
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First Colony Life Insurance v. LFC Resolution Payment Fund, Ltd.

This memorandum order addresses the defendant Settlement Capital Corporation's motion to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and a supplemental motion to dismiss on grounds of mootness. The case involves an injured worker, Jimmy Lee Watkins, Jr., who received an annuity as part of a workers' compensation settlement. Plaintiffs St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company and First Colony Life Insurance Company initiated the action after Watkins purported to transfer future annuity payments to Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) and LFC Resolution Payment Fund, Ltd. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the transfer was invalid and an injunction against further transfer efforts. SCC filed a supplemental motion to dismiss, arguing the case was moot because the defendants subsequently rescinded the transfer agreement and stipulated that payments should go to Watkins. The court concluded that the defendants' voluntary cessation of the challenged conduct and the lack of a reasonable expectation of recurrence rendered the case moot, despite plaintiffs' concerns about collateral consequences. Therefore, SCC's supplemental motion to dismiss was granted on condition of filing an additional stipulation.

Mootness DoctrineStructured SettlementsAnnuity PaymentsWorkers' Compensation ClaimSubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefVoluntary CessationFederal Court JurisdictionArticle III
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Keselman v. New York City Transit Authority

Claimant, injured in 1986, initially established a right shoulder injury. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this but denied a causally related neck injury in 1996. After another application in 1998 alleging a worsened neck condition, the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found a causally related neck injury and permanent partial disability, awarding benefits from February 5, 1998, which the Board affirmed. Separately, the Board also ruled the employer was entitled to credit schedule payments against disability payments made after February 5, 1998. The court affirmed both decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the deterioration of the neck injury post-1996 and that schedule awards are independent of actual disability periods, thus allowing the employer's credit.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySchedule AwardDisability PaymentsNeck InjuryRight Shoulder InjuryCausally Related InjuryReopening CaseMedical EvidenceMRI
References
7
Case No. ADJ2304030 (OAK 0305414)
Regular
Dec 09, 2011

HAINE COLLINS vs. SAFETY SERVICE SCAFFOLD, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involved a dispute over home health care payments for an injured worker. The defendant argued that payments should be withheld due to the applicant's initial refusal of a home health evaluation. However, the Board found that the stipulated order for payment was not conditional on the evaluation itself. The Board affirmed the prior order for payment, clarifying that the only conditional aspect pertained to the nurse case manager's identity. Therefore, the defendant's petition for reconsideration was denied.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationHome Health CareStipulated OrderNurse Case ManagerEK Health reportWCJRetrospective PaymentIndustrial InjuryScaffold Erector
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dye v. Witco Corp.

Robert Dye, an employee of Witco Corporation, developed an allergic skin condition which he believed was work-related due to chemical exposure. Despite medical recommendations and initial payment of medical expenses by Witco, the company concluded his condition was not employment-related based on a job site analysis. Dye filed a complaint for workers’ compensation benefits in March 1999 but voluntarily dismissed it in May 2001. A second complaint was filed in December 2002. The trial court granted summary judgment to Witco, finding Dye's claim barred by the statute of limitations, arguing that Witco's last voluntary payment was in October 1999, making the statute run in October 2000, and a later isolated payment in October 2002 did not revive the claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment, concluding the claim was time-barred.

Statute of LimitationsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsVoluntary PaymentsSavings StatuteSummary JudgmentOccupational DiseaseAllergic ConditionMedical CausationWaiver of IssuesAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. 2-09-265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. v. Shelby Jackson

Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. appealed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. The appellants contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish DTPA violations, economic damages, an unconscionable act by Norris, mental anguish damages, and entitlement to treble damages or attorney's fees. The trial court found that Avery violated the DTPA by misrepresenting rights and failing to disclose information, causing $500 in economic damages, which were trebled. It also found Norris committed an unconscionable act intentionally, causing $2,500 in mental anguish damages, also trebled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all findings.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActEconomic DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesContract ModificationConsumer ProtectionTexas Law
References
46
Case No. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 7,238 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