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

Claim of Lewis v. Stewart's Marketing Corp.

A claimant sustained serious injuries in 1997 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. In 2008, a dispute arose regarding the permanency and degree of disability, with conflicting medical reports submitted by the claimant (permanent total disability) and the employer (moderate partial disability). The Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the employer's request to cross-examine the claimant and his physician, subsequently ruling that the claimant had a permanent total disability. Upon appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, emphasizing that denying the employer's timely request for cross-examination was improper, especially given the conflicting medical evidence, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers’ CompensationDisability AssessmentPermanent Total DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationCross-Examination RightsProcedural Due ProcessConflicting Medical EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Reversal
References
3
Case No. ADJ1880658
Regular
Feb 09, 2011

CLAIRE COATS vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision that denied her motion to strike a permanent disability rating and denied her request for cross-examination of the rater. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant was improperly denied her due process right to cross-examine the rater. The Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the case to the trial level for a new WCJ to conduct further proceedings and issue a new decision, allowing consideration of the applicant's other contentions. This procedural error regarding the cross-examination right necessitated the remand.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClaire CoatsState Compensation Insurance FundFindings and Award and OrderSenior Claims AdjusterIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityMotion to StrikeCross-examinationRater
References
1
Case No. 03-13-00077-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage // Cross-Appellant,Texas Medical Association v. Texas Medical Association// Texas State Board of Examiners of Marriage and Family Therapists Charles Horton in His Official Capacity Sandra DeSobe in Her Official Capacity, and Texas Association of Marriage

The amicus brief, submitted by The Association of Marital and Family Therapy Regulatory Boards (AMFTRB), urges the Third Court of Appeals to grant en banc reconsideration and reverse a panel's decision that found 22 TEX. ADMIN CODE §801.42(13) invalid. The brief argues that Licensed Marriage and Family Therapists (LMFTs) are fully qualified, trained, and tested to perform diagnostic assessments within their therapeutic role. It asserts that diagnosis alone, in the context of marriage and family therapy, does not constitute the practice of medicine under the Texas Medical Practice Act, and preventing LMFTs from performing these assessments would effectively prohibit their professional practice and create a shortage of mental health professionals in Texas. The AMFTRB also highlights that the legislature did not intend for LMFTs to be supervised by physicians and that the structure of the Occupations Code supports marriage and family therapy as a stand-alone profession. Additionally, the brief questions the qualification of the Texas Medical Association's expert witness due to prior ethical lapses.

Marriage and Family TherapyDiagnostic AssessmentMedical Practice ActOccupations CodeRegulatory BoardsLicensureScope of PracticeMental Health ServicesTexasAccreditation
References
9
Case No. 03-05-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas and Donald W. Patrick, M.D., J.D., as Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners for the State of Texas v. Vivian Adaobi O. Nzedu, M.D.

The Texas State Board of Medical Examiners denied Dr. Vivian Nzedu's medical license application, citing her failure to pass the USMLE within the statutorily permitted attempts. The Board included an examination attempt made prior to the effective date of the 'three-attempts statute' (September 1, 1993). The trial court initially sided with Dr. Nzedu, ruling that pre-1993 attempts should not be counted. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that counting pre-statute examination attempts is not an unconstitutional retroactive application of the Medical Practice Act, as it merely draws upon antecedent facts and does not impair a vested right. The court deferred to the Board's reasonable interpretation of the statute. The case was remanded for a determination of attorneys' fees.

Medical LicensingUSMLEStatutory InterpretationRetroactivityVested RightsAdministrative LawTexas Medical Practice ActPhysician LicensureExamination RequirementsAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. 03-13-00790-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2015

T. Mark Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson//Cross-Appellants, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer v. Richard T. Archer, David R. Archer, Carol Archer Bugg, John v. Archer, Karen Archer Ball, and Sherri Archer//Cross-Appellees, T. Mark Anderson, Co-Executor of the Estate of Ted Anderson, and Christine Anderson, as Co-Executor

This case involves a tortious interference with inheritance lawsuit. Richard T. Archer and family (Appellees/Cross-Appellants) sued T. Mark Anderson and Christine Anderson (Appellants/Cross-Appellees), co-executors of Ted M. Anderson's estate. The Archers alleged that Ted Anderson tortiously interfered with their inheritance from John R. 'Jack' Archer by causing Jack, after a debilitating stroke that left him mentally incapacitated, to sign new estate planning documents that disinherited the Archers in favor of charities. The Archers incurred significant attorney's fees and settlement costs in prior litigation to reinstate Jack's original estate plan, which favored them. A jury found Ted Anderson liable for tortious interference and awarded damages, which the district court modified to include an additional settlement amount with charities. The appellees are now seeking to affirm the liability finding and modify the damage award on cross-appeal.

Tortious Interference with InheritanceEstate Planning DisputeMental IncapacityUndue InfluenceFiduciary Duty BreachGuardianship ProceedingWill ContestAttorney's Fees as DamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
78
Case No. ADJ2951251 (LBO 0388783) ADJ405202 (LBO 0388784)
Regular
Aug 16, 2010

MARIANA CONTRERAS, MARIANA CONTRERAS MADRIGAL vs. 99 CENTS STORES, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration because the defendant was denied due process. The defendant timely filed a petition to cross-examine the disability rater and submit rebuttal evidence electronically. However, the administrative law judge was unaware of this filing and issued a decision without allowing the defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the rater. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior award and returned the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermissibly Self-InsuredSouthern California Risk Management AssociatesFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityDisability Evaluation SpecialistReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemDue ProcessAgreed Medical Examiner
References
5
Case No. ADJ887948 (SRO 0103492) ADJ4222536 (SRO 0103500) ADJ3891200 (SRO 0103496)
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

RICHARD CARROLL vs. CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS, INC., Permissibly Self-Insured, Reinsured By RELIANCE, In Liquidation, Adjusted By CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded prior awards due to a due process violation. The applicant was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the Disability Evaluation Unit rater when the WCJ simultaneously issued decisions and the recommended rating. This prevented applicant's right to object or seek rebuttal evidence before submission for decision. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including potential rater cross-examination, and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings Award and OrdersJoint Findings and AwardWCJDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsDue ProcessCross-examinationRater
References
3
Case No. 12-19-00032-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2019

City of Dallas, a Self-Insured Employer, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Gregory D. Thompson, Appellee/Cross-Appellant

This is an interlocutory appeal from a trial court’s ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction in a suit for judicial review of a Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) decision. The City of Dallas, a self-insured employer, challenged counterclaims filed by Gregory D. Thompson, a former employee who claimed workers’ compensation benefits. Dallas asserted the trial court lacked jurisdiction over Thompson’s counterclaims due to untimely filing. Thompson cross-appealed the dismissal of his counterclaim for attorney’s fees based on governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the forty-five-day deadline for judicial review is not jurisdictional and upholding governmental immunity for the City of Dallas regarding attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsJudicial Review of Administrative DecisionsPlea to JurisdictionTimeliness of FilingsGovernmental Immunity DoctrineAttorney's Fees ClaimInterlocutory Appeal TexasLabor Code ViolationsSelf-Insured EntitiesAppellate Court Rulings
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cearley v. Cross Timbers Production Co.

Robert Cearley, an employee under the supervision of Cross Timbers, sustained a personal injury in January 1988 while working on a Cross Timbers oil and gas lease. He claimed Cross Timbers was negligent for not providing a ladder. This appeal concerns a take-nothing summary judgment granted to Cross Timbers, which argued the borrowed servant doctrine applied. The court examined whether Cearley was a regular employee of Crown Central or a borrowed servant of Cross Timbers at the time of the accident. The summary judgment was affirmed, as Cearley's pleading that Cross Timbers controlled his work constituted a judicial admission, establishing him as a borrowed servant under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, thereby insulating Cross Timbers from liability.

Borrowed Servant DoctrineSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryTexas Workers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityControl TestJudicial AdmissionOil and Gas LeaseAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
5
Case No. 04-12-00702-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2013

John Homer Coonly (Appellant/Cross-Appellee) v. Gables Residential Services, Inc., D/B/A Gables West Avenue (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)

John Homer Coonly appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Gables Residential Services, Inc., which resulted in Coonly taking nothing on his claims for negligence, premises liability, and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA). Coonly's claims stemmed from the theft and vandalism of his motorcycles from the apartment parking garage owned by Gables. Gables filed a cross-appeal regarding the denial of attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment on negligence and premises liability claims, finding the lease agreements validly waived such claims. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Coonly's DTPA claim, concluding that the waiver language in the agreements did not meet the DTPA's statutory requirements and Coonly's affidavit raised a material issue of fact regarding Gables' representations about the access gate.

NegligencePremises LiabilityDeceptive Trade Practices ActDTPASummary JudgmentLease AgreementExculpatory ClauseWaiver of LiabilityAttorney's FeesContract Law
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 4,968 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