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

Blair v. Texas Employment Commission

William G. Blair appealed an order requiring him to produce employment and payroll records to the Texas Employment Commission (TEC). Blair claimed the records were privileged under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, fearing self-incrimination, and offered to produce them only if granted immunity. The Attorney General then filed an application in the 72nd District Court of Lubbock County, which ordered Blair to produce the records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the "required records" doctrine, which is an exception to the self-incrimination privilege for records mandated by law for governmental regulation, especially concerning public welfare and the collection of taxes for unemployment compensation.

Required Records DoctrineSelf-IncriminationFifth AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEmployment RecordsPayroll RecordsAdministrative SubpoenaGovernmental RegulationPublic Welfare
References
4
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
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. 10-91-116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1992

Employers Insurance of Wausau, a Mutual Company v. Calvin L. Heath

Employers Insurance of Wausau appealed a judgment awarding worker's compensation benefits to Calvin Heath, stemming from an injury Heath sustained in April 1988 while working for Nucor Steel Corporation. Employers raised points of error concerning the denial of a continuance, the refusal to allow a medical witness's testimony, the sufficiency of evidence for total incapacity, and the appropriate credit for pre-trial benefits. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the continuance ruling, upholding the exclusion of the medical testimony due to insufficient record, and determining the evidence supported the total incapacity finding and the credit amount. Additionally, the court agreed with Heath's cross-point, assessing damages of $2,500 against Employers for taking the appeal for delay and without sufficient cause. This decision was issued by the Tenth Court of Appeals in Texas.

Worker's CompensationAppellate ProcedureContinuanceExpert WitnessSufficiency of EvidenceTotal IncapacityPre-trial BenefitsDamages for DelayIndustrial Accident BoardMedical Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elena E. Francisco, Inc. v. Texas Employment Commission

Manuel Diaz, a supervisor, was discharged from his employment for allegedly lying about a December 6, 1987 incident involving alleged marihuana use. The Texas Employment Commission (TEC) granted him unemployment compensation benefits, finding no misconduct. The employer appealed this decision, raising two points of error: (1) insufficient evidence to support the TEC's ruling and (2) trial court error in excluding evidence of other misconduct not presented to the Commission. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, which had upheld the TEC's ruling, emphasizing that the 'substantial evidence' rule is the correct standard of review for TEC decisions, despite statutory language implying a de novo trial. The court also found no error in the trial court's handling of the additional misconduct evidence.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployment TerminationWorkplace MisconductLyingMarihuana UseSubstantial Evidence ReviewTrial De NovoAppellate ProcedureAdministrative LawTexas Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Washington

The Texas Employers’ Insurance Association appealed a judgment awarding Carnell Washington total and permanent disability benefits due to an employment injury in Dallas County on April 5, 1967. The appellant challenged the jury's finding of permanent incapacity, arguing there was no evidence or insufficient evidence to support it. The appellate court reviewed the record, including lay testimony regarding Washington's continued pain and physical limitations, and contradictory medical testimony from Dr. Simpson. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that permanent disability can be reasonably inferred from circumstantial evidence provided by lay witnesses, even when medical experts offer a differing opinion.

Workers' Compensation AppealTotal Permanent DisabilityLay Witness TestimonyMedical Expert OpinionSufficiency of EvidenceSubjective vs. Objective FindingsJury FindingsBack InjuryEmployment InjuryCircumstantial Evidence
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Employers Casualty Co. v. Curry

Joe Curry, the appellee, brought a workman's compensation suit against United Employers Casualty Company, the appellant, to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award and seek compensation for total and permanent incapacity due to a back injury sustained on November 26, 1939, while employed by C. W. Sternberg. The jury found in favor of Curry, awarding 400 weeks' compensation. The appellant appealed, raising issues regarding Sunday labor, the refusal of a physical examination, jury instructions on partial incapacity and sole cause of incapacity, and the exclusion of the appellee's criminal record. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in any of the appellant's contentions.

Workman's CompensationPermanent IncapacityTotal IncapacityIndustrial Accident BoardSunday LaborPenal CodePhysical ExaminationJury InstructionsSole CauseCriminal Record Admissibility
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1991

Davis v. Alpha Apple, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the claimant's decedent sustained an accidental injury during employment and awarded workers' compensation benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the record lacked adequate support for the Board's finding. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that whether an activity falls within the course of employment is a factual issue for the Board to resolve. The court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's determination, noting that the decedent was directed by a supervisor to perform an activity not for personal gain, with the employer's knowledge, and died as a result of an injury sustained while using the employer's equipment. The court also highlighted that even if an activity primarily benefits a supervisor privately, an injury sustained during that work may still be compensable.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewSupervisor's DirectionEmployer's EquipmentCompensable InjuryBoard Decision Affirmed
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 18,777 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