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 Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Mandlbauer

Mike Mandlbauer, injured in a forklift accident in 1992, had his claim disputed by the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund after later medical findings contradicted an earlier MRI. A district court jury found Mandlbauer's current symptoms and disability were not a result of the 1992 injury. On appeal, Mandlbauer complained about the trial court's refusal to include a "sole cause" inferential rebuttal instruction. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that Mandlbauer, as the plaintiff, lacked standing to complain about the omission of a defense-oriented "sole cause" instruction. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for consideration of Mandlbauer's other issues.

Jury InstructionsSole CauseInferential RebuttalStandingAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationProducing CauseTexas LawTrial Court ErrorHarmful Error
References
9
Case No. ADJ4258585 (OXN 0130492) ADJ220258 (OXN 0130487)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

ENRIQUE HERRERA vs. MAPLE LEAF FOODS, U.S. FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALEA NORTH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This notice informs parties that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) intends to admit its rating instructions and a disability rater's recommended permanent disability rating into evidence. The WCAB previously granted reconsideration for further study. Parties have seven days to object to the rating instructions or the recommended rating, with specific procedures for addressing objections. If no timely objection is filed, the matters will be submitted for decision thirty days after service.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPermanent Disability RatingDisability Evaluation UnitRating InstructionsRecommended Permanent Disability RatingJoint RatingReconsiderationObjectionRater Cross-ExaminationRebuttal Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cummins v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.

Earl D. Cummins appealed an instructed verdict favoring Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, Inc., and Sherman’s Power Tongs, Inc. Cummins, a derrickman, was injured when a stabbing board broke while he was working. He sued the appellees, alleging negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Cummins had voluntarily encountered a known danger, thus applying the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria. Furthermore, the court found insufficient evidence to support the negligence claims against Sherman’s Power Tongs, Inc.

Instructed VerdictNegligenceVolenti Non Fit InjuriaAssumption of RiskOilfield InjuryDerrickmanIndependent ContractorsWorkers' CompensationTexas LawPremises Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rozewicz v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This opinion addresses a complex medical malpractice case involving the death of Mrs. Rosewicz, a Jehovah's Witness, who refused blood transfusions due to religious beliefs. Justice Lehner explores three categories of relevant legal precedents: government benefit denials for religious refusal of treatment, tortfeasor liability and mitigation of damages, and malpractice claims where a patient refused life-saving treatment on religious grounds. The court declines to charge the jury on mitigation of damages, deeming it inappropriate for this specific case. Instead, the judge rules that the jury will be instructed on the principles of assumption of risk and comparative fault, allowing for the apportionment of liability between the defendant's alleged negligence and the decedent's refusal of blood transfusions, consistent with decisions in Shorter v Drury and Corlett v Caserta.

Medical MalpracticeReligious FreedomBlood Transfusion RefusalJehovah's WitnessAssumption of RiskComparative FaultMitigation of DamagesWrongful DeathJury InstructionsNegligence
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mathis v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.

Carolyn Mathis appealed a judgment in her workers' compensation case, contesting a verdict of temporary total disability. She argued that the trial court's jury instruction regarding "unjustifiable refusal to accept employment" created an irreconcilable conflict when read alongside the "total incapacity" instruction and lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The appellate court disagreed, finding the instructions properly explained total incapacity and the insurer's affirmative defense under Texas workers' compensation laws. The court found no error or conflict in the charge and affirmed the trial court's discretion in submitting the instruction. Additionally, the judgment was affirmed on the basis of harmless error, as the jury ultimately found Mathis's injury resulted in total incapacity, negating any potential prejudice from the challenged instruction.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityJury InstructionsUnjustifiable Refusal of EmploymentTotal IncapacityAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewHarmless ErrorTexas LawJury Confusion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Chase

Defendant was convicted of rape in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child stemming from an incident on April 24, 1996. On appeal, defendant contended that he was denied a public trial, that the trial judge was biased, that he was denied effective cross-examination, and that expert testimony was improperly admitted. The court affirmed the judgment, finding most contentions unpreserved or without merit. While some prosecutorial remarks were improper, curative instructions prevented prejudice. The court also found the sentence, which considered the traumatic impact on the victim, appropriate.

Rape First DegreeEndangering Welfare of ChildPublic Trial RightJudicial ImpartialityCross-ExaminationExpert TestimonyProsecutorial MisconductSentencing ReviewAppellate AffirmationPreservation of Error
References
24
Case No. M1998-00954-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2002

Steven Bohanon v. Jones Bros., Inc.

This appeal concerns a property damage claim initiated by Steven Teddy Bohanon and Kathy Bohanon against Jones Bros., Inc., a contractor, following blasting operations for highway construction in Macon County. The Bohanons sued for actual and punitive damages, alleging negligence and property damage to their home. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Jones Bros., which the trial court upheld. On appeal, the property owners challenged the admissibility of evidence and the trial court's failure to provide a curative instruction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding that there was no reversible error and that the jury's verdict was supported by material evidence, suggesting the jury may have disbelieved the extent of the claimed damages.

Blasting AccidentsProperty Damage ClaimsNegligence ClaimsUltra-hazardous ActivitiesJury Verdict ReviewAppellate Court DecisionEvidentiary AdmissibilityCausation in TortsDamages AssessmentCurative Instruction
References
47
Case No. M2024-00362-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2025

Tatum M. Campbell v. T.C. Restaurant Group, LLC

The Plaintiff, Tatum M. Campbell, sued Chris Bullard and T.C. Restaurant Group, LLC for negligence after sustaining a concussion from a fall off a stage at a Nashville music venue. Campbell alleged Bullard, a performer, negligently dropped her, while Bullard claimed she was intoxicated and fell backward. The jury found the defendants not at fault. On appeal, Campbell argued reversible error due to a "lottery lawsuit winner" comment by defense counsel and the admission of evidence about medical leave benefits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that curative instructions addressed the comment and any error regarding medical leave evidence was harmless as the jury found no liability.

NegligencePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityCollateral Source RuleAppellate ReviewJury VerdictCurative InstructionAbuse of DiscretionHarmless ErrorMedical Leave Benefits
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kendrix v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

This is a dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Walker, disagreeing with the majority's decision to reverse and remand a case based on appellant's points of error one and seven. The dissent argues that the appellant's complaints, particularly regarding alleged violations of a motion in limine, were waived due to a failure to make timely and specific objections at trial. The Chief Justice emphasizes that a motion in limine is not a substitute for an objection. The opinion also points out that the mention of workers' compensation insurance was initiated by the appellant's own witness and that the appellant refused a curative instruction concerning a prior lawsuit, thereby waiving that error. The dissent concludes that the errors were waived and the trial court's refusal to grant a new trial should have been upheld.

Dissenting OpinionMotion in LimineWaiver of ErrorObjectionCurative InstructionWorkers' Compensation InsurancePrior LawsuitAppellate ProcedureEvidence RulesTexas Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2009

Kimble v. McGinnis

Joseph Kimble, a pro se petitioner, filed for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1997 Erie County conviction for murder, robbery, and weapon possession. Kimble argued he was deprived of a fair trial due to the jury's inadvertent viewing of a brief autopsy videotape of the naked victim during trial. Magistrate Judge Victor E. Bianchini recommended denying the petition, finding that although the incident was careless, it did not amount to a due process violation given its brevity, lack of gruesomeness, and the curative instructions provided to the jury. Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara adopted this recommendation, denying the petition and declining to issue a certificate of appealability.

habeas corpusdue processfair trialevidentiary errorautopsy videojury instructionprosecutorial misconductcircumstantial evidencemurder conviction challengerobbery conviction challenge
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,104 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