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. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Villasana

Guadalupe Villasana, an employee in Lubbock County, was awarded workers' compensation for total and permanent disability after sustaining a head injury during a work break on January 26, 1973. The Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (T.E.I.A.) sought to reverse this judgment, challenging the jury's findings regarding the injury's cause and its occurrence in the course of employment, as well as objections to jury instructions and the admission of medical records. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict, affirming that Villasana's injury was accidental and work-related. The objections to the jury instructions were overruled, and the admission of third-party medical records, though hearsay, was deemed harmless error.

Work InjuryTotal Permanent DisabilityAccident Course of EmploymentMedical TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsTrial Court ErrorHearsay EvidenceCausationMedical Records
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henshaw v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This is an appeal in a workman's compensation case. Leon H. Henshaw, an employee of Great Western Drilling Company, sought compensation benefits from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association for injuries sustained in an automobile accident while commuting home from work. The trial court instructed a verdict for the appellee, finding that Henshaw was not within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Henshaw contended that transporting a water can made his trip a 'substantial mission' for his employer. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the water can transport was merely incidental to his commute and did not place him within the scope of employment at the time of injury.

Workman's CompensationScope of EmploymentCommute RuleGoing and Coming RuleAutomobile AccidentPersonal MissionSubstantial MissionOil Field WorkerEmployer ResponsibilityIncidental Duties
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Brumbaugh

The case is a workmen’s compensation appeal initiated by Maunie F. Brumbaugh et al. against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. The dependents sought death benefits for W. C. Brumbaugh, who died from injuries in an automobile collision while allegedly on a special mission for his employer, L. Coffee. The central issues on appeal included the admissibility of the deceased's hearsay statements as res gestae and the trial court's definition of 'injury sustained in the course of employment.' The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in admitting the testimony or in the jury instructions, thereby upholding the finding that Brumbaugh was in the course of his employment.

Workmen's CompensationAppellate LawRes GestaeHearsay EvidenceCourse of EmploymentSpecial Mission DoctrineAutomobile AccidentEmployee InjuryEmployer ResponsibilityTexas Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Casualty Co. v. Hutchinson

This is a workers' compensation death case where Mary Jane Hutchinson sought benefits for her son, George W. Hutchinson, who died in an automobile accident while allegedly in the course and scope of his employment with Ford Motor Credit Corporation. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, but Employers Casualty Company appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the "dual-purpose travel doctrine." The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the decedent was in the course of his employment and that the dual-purpose travel doctrine was not applicable to the fatal trip.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentDual-Purpose Travel DoctrineAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceStatutory InterpretationEmployer's Affairs
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Goforth

Oscar B. Goforth, a roughneck, filed a workmen’s compensation suit against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association after sustaining a disabling back injury on November 18, 1955, while employed by the Hunter estate. A jury found he suffered ten weeks of total disability and 55% permanent partial disability. The trial court awarded Goforth 300 weeks of partial incapacity at $25 a week. Texas Employers’ Insurance Association appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for partial incapacity due to Goforth earning higher wages as a driller post-injury, and also raised points about jury instructions and attorney arguments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, stating that compensation is for diminution of earning capacity, not solely loss of earnings, and that ample evidence supported the jury’s finding of 55% partial disability. The court specifically overruled objections regarding the submission of special issue number fourteen, the consideration of Billy Joe Lewis's work history, and the various arguments made by Goforth's attorney concerning witness absence, doctor bias, and the finality of the case. They concluded that no reversible error was found, thus upholding the lower court's decision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityDiminution of Earning CapacityJury FindingsAttorney MisconductMedical Examiner BiasTrial Court AffirmationAppealBack InjuryOil Field Employment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Associated Employers Lloyds v. Groce

John N. Groce, an employee of Hardwick-Etter Company, suffered a permanent total disability due to an assault by a co-worker during employment. The Industrial Accident Board initially ruled against Groce, but a lower court jury found in his favor, concluding his injuries were sustained in the course of employment and were not self-provoked. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings, despite conflicting testimonies regarding the events leading to the assault. The court addressed several procedural points of error raised by the appellants, including the sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, and counsel's arguments, ultimately finding no reversible error.

Workers' CompensationAssault in Course of EmploymentTotal Permanent DisabilityJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceWillful IntentAggressor DefenseTexas LawIndustrial Accident
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 1938

Texas Employers' Insurance v. James

Raymond James, an employee of MacPherson Construction Company, was hired in Texas for work in Pennsylvania. He sustained a severe injury in Pennsylvania and initially received compensation from the Pennsylvania insurer, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, including a lump sum settlement. Later, James filed a claim with the Industrial Accident Board of Texas against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, the Texas insurer, arguing that the contract of hire in Texas entitled him to Texas compensation. The Court held that the Texas compensation law did not apply because the employment was to be performed wholly in Pennsylvania, and the injury occurred there, thus he was not an 'employee in this state' as contemplated by the Texas statute. The Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's instruction for a verdict for the defendant.

Workers' CompensationExtraterritorial InjuryConflict of LawsEmployment ContractTexas LawPennsylvania LawInsurance CarrierTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident Board
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spielbauer v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Tom Spielbauer appealed a take-nothing judgment in his workers' compensation claim against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, seeking benefits for an injury sustained in his part-time employment. The jury found he suffered partial incapacity with a reduced earning capacity, but his pre-injury average weekly wage was not explicitly determined. The trial court's subsequent take-nothing judgment relied on a deemed finding that conflicted with the jury's verdict of partial incapacity. The appellate court reversed the judgment and remanded the case, highlighting the irreconcilable conflict between the findings and instructing the trial court to make a written finding on the omitted wage element.

Workers' CompensationPartial IncapacityAverage Weekly WageJury FindingsConflicting VerdictDeemed FindingsAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandTexas LawEarning Capacity
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) challenged a worker's compensation award granted to Lydia Hernandez, who claimed her asthmatic and allergic conditions were caused by her work environment. TEIA filed suit to set aside the award, and the trial court granted an instructed verdict in TEIA's favor. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that Hernandez had not provided sufficient evidence, particularly expert medical testimony, to establish a causal link between her employment and her medical conditions, which is required for compensability under worker's compensation law.

Worker's CompensationOccupational DiseaseAsthmaAllergic RhinitisCausationExpert TestimonyInstructed VerdictMedical EvidenceEnvironmental FactorsTexas Law
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 15,953 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