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

Waste Disposal Center, Inc. v. Larson

Waste Disposal Center, Inc. appealed a judgment for Soila Valdez and Michelle Larson concerning property damage, negligence, trespass, and nuisance. Cross-appellants, including Valdez, challenged the dismissal of claims against the Estate of Franklin F. Kelley and the jury charge on strict liability, and the constitutionality of the exemplary damages cap. The court affirmed the jury's finding of property damages but reversed the award for mental anguish, citing insufficient evidence. It also upheld the dismissal against the Kelley Estate on jurisdictional grounds and affirmed the constitutionality of the exemplary damages cap, thereby affirming in part and reversing and rendering in part.

Property DamageNegligenceTrespassNuisanceExemplary DamagesMental AnguishConstitutional LawOpen Courts ProvisionSeparation of PowersJury Verdict
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tarrant County Waste Disposal, Inc. v. Doss

John Lee Doss, an employee of Tarrant County Waste Disposal, Inc. (TCWD), sustained personal injuries in a bulldozer fall. TCWD, a non-subscriber to Worker's Compensation, had a blanket accident policy which paid Doss's medical expenses. Doss signed a release related to partial disability coverage but subsequently sued TCWD for common law negligence. The trial court ruled in favor of Doss. TCWD appealed, arguing the release barred the claim, a new trial was justified by newly discovered evidence, and an offset for medical payments was due. The appellate court found the release only applied to policy claims, TCWD lacked diligence regarding new evidence, and that payments from TCWD's policy were not from a collateral source, thus allowing an offset. The judgment was reformed to reduce Doss's recovery by the medical expenses paid and affirmed as reformed.

Workers' Compensation Non-SubscriberBlanket Accident PolicyCollateral Source RuleRelease Agreement InterpretationNewly Discovered EvidenceMotion for New TrialContinuance DenialOffset for Medical ExpensesCommon Law NegligenceDue Diligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gioia v. Cattaraugus County Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant's reduced earnings award. The claimant, a nurse's aide with a permanent partial disability from a back injury, had her weekly compensation rate adjusted by the Board to be based on her actual reduced earnings from her current job, rather than her degree of disability. The employer and its workers' compensation carrier appealed, arguing that the Board should have considered the claimant's capacity to earn more. The court affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that for claimants demonstrating labor market attachment, wage-earning capacity must be determined exclusively by actual earnings during disability, as evidence of capacity to earn more or less, including medical evidence of disability degree, is prohibited.

reduced earnings awardpermanent partial disabilitywage earning capacitylabor market attachmentactual earningsworkers' compensation lawappeal decisionjudicial reviewindependent medical examinationemployer appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co. v. Werline

Richard Leon Werline, an employee of East Texas Salt Water Disposal Company, was awarded severance pay in a 'final and binding' arbitration. The Company petitioned the district court to vacate the award, which the court granted, ordering a re-arbitration. Werline appealed, and the court of appeals reversed the district court's judgment, confirming the original arbitration award. The Company then petitioned the Supreme Court for review, arguing the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that an order denying confirmation of an arbitration award is appealable under the Texas General Arbitration Act, even if it also vacates the award and directs a rehearing.

ArbitrationAppealTexas General Arbitration ActVacaturConfirmationRehearingJurisdictionEmployment LawSeverance PayJudicial Review
References
42
Case No. 06-06-00039-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2006

Richard Leon Werline v. East Texas Salt Water Disposal Company, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of an application to confirm an arbitration award. Richard Leon Werline initiated arbitration against East Texas Salt Water Disposal Company, Inc., for breach of his employment contract. The arbitrator awarded Werline twenty-four months' pay, but the trial court vacated the award and ordered a rehearing. The Court of Appeals addressed whether it had jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal, concluding that it did based on the plain language of the Texas Arbitration Act. On the merits, the appellate court determined that the trial court erred in denying Werline's application, finding sufficient evidence to support the arbitrator's decision and no gross mistake. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered judgment confirming the arbitrator's award.

Arbitration AwardContract BreachEmployment AgreementOperations ManagerInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionTexas Arbitration ActStandard of ReviewGross MistakeVacating Award
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Finocchio v. W. A. White Underwear Corp.

The claimant, a sewing machine operator, sustained an injury in 1955 and was later found to have a permanent partial disability in 1963. In 1974, her employer ceased operations, leading to an inability to find new work. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits for reduced earnings, determining she remained in the labor market. The employer appealed, arguing that the reduced earnings were solely due to economic conditions. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient proof that the claimant’s disability contributed to her reduced earnings after her employer went out of business, and remitted the case for further findings on the cause of the reduced earnings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsEconomic ConditionsCausationBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewRemittalWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. No. 22-0620
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2024

Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District, by and Through Marya Crigler, Acting in Her Official Capacity as Chief Appraiser of Travis Central Appraisal District

The dissenting opinion in Texas Disposal Systems Landfill, Inc. v. Travis Central Appraisal District challenges the majority's interpretation of Texas Tax Code Section 42.02(a)(1) regarding property tax appraisal appeals. Justice Boyd argues that limitations on such appeals are jurisdictional and that a district court's review of an appraisal review board order should not be confined solely to the grounds raised in the property owner's initial protest. The dissent asserts that the Tax Code and Texas Constitution mandate that appraised values must reflect both "equal and uniform" taxation and the property's "market value," and therefore, the district court should be able to address market value even if not initially protested. The dissent concurs with the majority's decision to affirm the court of appeals' judgment but disagrees with the prohibition on the district court addressing the market-value issue on remand. Consequently, Justice Boyd respectfully dissents in part.

Property TaxAppraisal LawJurisdictional LimitsMarket ValueEqual and Uniform TaxationDe Novo ReviewAdministrative RemediesTexas Tax CodeTexas ConstitutionJudicial Review
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of C.A.T.

The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) appealed a trial court's order dissolving a writ of garnishment against Father's bank account, which contained his disposable earnings as a self-employed carpenter. The trial court had ruled that Father was his own employer, and thus garnishment of his account violated Texas Family Code section 157.312(g), which prohibits liens directed to an employer to attach to disposable earnings. The trial court also found Father was current on his child-support arrears payments as per an agreed judgment. On appeal, Justice Murphy's opinion clarified that section 157.312(g) does not apply to self-employed individuals' bank accounts because the lien is directed to a financial institution, not an "employer" as defined by the code. Furthermore, the appellate court determined that the prior child-support judgment, which included a payment schedule, did not preclude the OAG from using other lawful collection methods, regardless of whether Father was current on his monthly payments. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order dissolving the writ of garnishment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Child SupportGarnishmentSelf-EmploymentTexas Family CodeStatutory InterpretationLien EnforcementDisposable EarningsJudgment on ArrearsAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2015

Claim of Barrett v. New York City Department of Transportation

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a claimant injured in a 2011 work-related motor vehicle accident. A WCLJ classified the claimant with a permanent partial disability and a 25% loss of wage-earning capacity, ruling that he would be entitled to 250 weeks of benefits if his full wages ceased. The Board affirmed this, leading the employer to appeal, arguing that the claimant's current full wages meant a 100% wage-earning capacity, rendering the 25% loss finding unlawful. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, distinguishing between 'loss of wage-earning capacity' (fixed, for benefit duration) and 'wage-earning capacity' (fluctuating, for weekly rates).

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityBenefit DurationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationMotor Vehicle AccidentNew York Workers' Compensation BoardDisability Classification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ilovar v. Consolidated Edison

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from December 22, 2004, which found no causal relationship between his work-related asbestosis, diagnosed in 1999, and a loss of earnings. The claimant had retired in 1993, prior to his asbestosis diagnosis, and had not sought employment thereafter. The Board determined that his pre-existing withdrawal from the labor market meant he had no earnings to lose due to asbestosis. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that there was no evidence to prove that the asbestosis caused any post-retirement loss of earnings, as the claimant had not worked or sought employment since 1993.

AsbestosisLoss of EarningsVoluntary WithdrawalPermanent Partial DisabilityOccupational DiseaseRetirement BenefitsCausal RelationshipAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionEvidence Sufficiency
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,197 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