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. ADJ7437726
Regular
Sep 26, 2012

DAVON GUIDRY vs. HIGHLAND PALMS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, involving Davon Guidry against Highland Palms and Travelers Indemnity Company, has been dismissed. The dismissal is due to the petitioner's withdrawal of their Petition for Reconsideration. The original decision, which the petition sought to review, was issued on July 16, 2012. The order of dismissal was filed and served on September 26, 2012.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ7437726Marguerite SweeneyHighland PalmsTravelers Indemnity CompanyDavon GuidryScoll & Associates
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guidry v. Neches Butane Products Co.

Guidry, an employee of Foster-Wheeler Corporation, sued Neches Butane Products Company for personal injuries sustained while working at Neches' plant. Foster was impleaded as a third-party defendant, and Foster impleaded Tri-Co, Inc. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company intervened. Guidry was injured when a crane's outrigger sank into unstable soil, causing a heat exchanger to strike him. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of duty and proximate cause. The court affirmed the summary judgment against Guidry, concluding that Neches had no duty to warn of a hidden defect it neither knew nor reasonably should have known existed, and that the injury was not foreseeable.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorPersonal InjuryNegligenceDuty to WarnHidden DefectsForeseeabilityProximate CauseWorkers' Compensation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond Offshore Management Company v. Lela Guidry

Justice Gaultney dissents, arguing that "course and scope" and "in the service of the vessel" constitute an essential element of the plaintiff's burden of proof, not merely an inferential rebuttal issue. He contends that the trial court erred by not submitting this controlling fact issue, concerning whether Guidry was within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, to the jury despite the defendant's objection. Additionally, Gaultney asserts that evidence regarding Guidry's intoxication was improperly excluded, as it was relevant to both Guidry's negligence and his return to the vessel's service. Consequently, Justice Gaultney believes the case should be remanded for a new trial due to the defective jury instruction.

Jury InstructionCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentService of VesselPlaintiff's BurdenInferential RebuttalFact IssueIntoxication EvidenceNegligenceRemand
References
7
Case No. 14-04-01022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2007

Abel Arguelles, Terrie A. Augustino, Petra Renee Barfield, William a Barfield, Adolph Brown, Desmond Burnett, Dora A. Burnett, Ricky A. Carter v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., Individually and as Successor in Interest to the M.W. Kellogg Company, and Halliburton Company, Individually and as Successor in Interest to the M.W. Kellogg Company

This case originated from a catastrophic chemical complex explosion and fire that resulted in numerous worker injuries. The injured workers and their families (Appellants) sued Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc. and Halliburton Company (Appellees) for negligence, alleging inadequate pressure relief system evaluations provided years before the incident. The trial court issued a take-nothing summary judgment against the workers. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, finding it was final. The appellate court concluded that Phillips's actions leading up to the explosion constituted a new and independent cause, legally breaking the chain of causation from Kellogg's alleged earlier negligence, or alternatively, that Kellogg's conduct was too remote to be considered a substantial factor in causing the injuries.

Chemical Plant ExplosionButadiene PolymerizationPressure Relief SystemNegligenceProximate CauseSuperseding CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIndustrial AccidentSafety Engineering
References
17
Case No. ADJ3056232 (ANA 0317428)
Regular
Apr 30, 2009

LYLE GUIDRY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES/LANTERMAN STATE HOSPITAL, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

This case concerns an applicant who sustained a right wrist injury in 1993. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of an award of temporary disability indemnity (TDI) issued more than five years after the injury date. The WCAB rescinded the prior award because the medical evidence lacked substantial support regarding the applicant's ongoing temporary total disability post-surgery. The matter was returned to the trial level for further development of the record and a new decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric TechnicianIndustrial InjuryRight WristTemporary Disability IndemnityTemporary Total DisabilityDate of InjuryAgreed Medical ExaminerPermanent and StationaryExcision of Ganglion Cyst
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayers v. Associated Indemnity Corp.

The plaintiff, Mayers, an employee of Panhandle Steel Products Company, sustained a work-related injury in October 1936, leading to the total loss of use of his left leg by November 1937. He initiated a worker's compensation claim in state court, which was then removed to a federal district court. A motion to remand was filed, contending that the compensation due would be less than $3,000 if the payment period started from the date of disability. However, the court applied the Texas Supreme Court's interpretation from Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Guidry, ruling that the compensation period begins from the original injury date. This calculation resulted in a compensation amount exceeding $3,000, thus maintaining federal jurisdiction and leading to the overruling of the motion to remand.

Worker's CompensationInjury CompensationFederal Court JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTexas LawDate of InjuryDate of DisabilityMotion to RemandEmployee RightsEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rush v. Barrios

Melvin Barrios, rendered quadriplegic by a roofing accident, initially hired attorney Warren D. Rush for product liability and ERISA claims. Barrios later fired Rush, citing poor communication, Rush's failure to pursue the ERISA claim (due to a perceived conflict with Rush's representation of Barrios's employer, Knight Oil Tools), and improper handling of the product liability suit. Barrios then retained Aaron W. Guidry and Mallia & Jacobs, who settled the product liability case for two million dollars. A subsequent dispute arose to apportion the $666,666.67 contingency fee among the attorneys. The trial court reduced Rush's jury-awarded fee from $111,111.11 to $33,333.33 for termination for cause, further applying a 10% reduction under Louisiana law to $29,999.99. Rush appealed, challenging the judgment notwithstanding the verdict, the summary judgment on termination for cause, and the court's personal jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Legal Fees DisputeAttorney MalpracticeTermination for CauseContingency Fee AgreementJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictSummary JudgmentPersonal JurisdictionERISA ClaimsProducts LiabilityAttorney-Client Conflict
References
48
Showing 1-7 of 7 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