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

Sells v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Edward D. Sells, a worker, appealed a take-nothing judgment in a workers' compensation case, arguing that the jury's failure to find his injury occurred during the course and scope of his employment with Westbrook Ready-Mix was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The appellee, Texas Employers’ Ins. Association (TEIA), filed a motion for rehearing, which the court ultimately overruled. The appellate court found the jury's refusal to link Sells' injury to his employment was manifestly wrong and unjust, given the overwhelming evidence presented. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial, emphasizing its responsibility to reweigh the evidence on factual insufficiency points.

Workers' CompensationJury VerdictFactual InsufficiencyStandard of ReviewGreat Weight and PreponderanceMotion for New TrialCourse and Scope of EmploymentAppellate ReviewCredibility of WitnessesExpert Testimony
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
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

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06413
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Garcia v. Cantor

Claimant Giovani Garcia sustained a work-related injury after being bitten by a snake while picking up leaves for employer Stuart Cantor. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, found the employer uninsured, and assessed a penalty. The employer appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, but the Board denied the application for review due to the employer's failure to provide a complete response to question 15 on the RB-89 form, specifically by omitting the date of objection. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board has discretion to deny review for non-compliance with its procedural rules, and the employer's response was patently defective for lacking the required date.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ReviewBoard DiscretionApplication for ReviewForm RB-89Procedural RulesUninsured EmployerPenalty AssessmentWork-Related InjurySnake Bite
References
14
Case No. 532415
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

In the Matter of the Claim of Giovani Garcia

Claimant, a laborer, was bitten by a snake while working for an uninsured employer. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a work-related injury to claimant's left hand and left wrist, authorized medical treatment, and assessed a penalty against the employer for being uninsured. The employer appealed the WCLJ's decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but the Board denied the application for review due to the employer's failure to provide a complete response to a required question on the application form (RB-89). Specifically, the employer's response did not provide the date on which an objection or exception was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the Board has the discretion to deny review when a party, represented by counsel, fails to comply with its regulations regarding application requirements.

Workers' CompensationUninsured EmployerAdministrative ReviewBoard RegulationsForm RB-89Objection DateAppellate DivisionCompliancePenalty AssessmentWork-Related Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1991

Krajas v. Chevy Pontiac Canada Group

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding a self-insured employer's responsibility for a claim. The Board exercised its continuing jurisdiction, despite the case being previously closed. A letter from the claimant’s attorney, submitted after the closing date, was deemed a valid application for compensation, alerting the employer to ongoing proceedings. The Board concluded that this application prevented the employer from being relieved of responsibility under Workers’ Compensation Law §25-a. The application was also found to be filed within the stipulated time limits. The court affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationContinuing JurisdictionReduced Earnings AwardApplication for CompensationSelf-Insured EmployerStatutory Time LimitsBoard DecisionAppealReopened CasesClaimant Rights
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Illinois Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. Lewis

This appellate case addresses a default judgment entered against defendants, Illinois Employers Insurance Company of Wausau and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, in a worker's compensation suit. The trial court struck the defendants' pleadings for failing to answer interrogatories and denied their request for a jury trial on damages. The appellate court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing such harsh sanctions without a prior order compelling discovery. It also found error in denying the jury trial on unliquidated damages. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Worker's CompensationDefault JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsInterrogatoriesTexas Civil ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionRight to Jury TrialDamagesAppellate ReviewRemand
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 16,127 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