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
Jul 12, 1967

Kraft v. Texas Employment Commission

This case addresses the eligibility of William Kraft and forty-eight other employees for unemployment compensation benefits under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act. The petitioners went on strike against Shamrock Oil and Gas Corporation but later offered to return to work, only to be denied employment because their positions had been filled by permanent replacements. The central legal question revolves around whether their unemployment was still "due to the claimant’s stoppage of work because of a labor dispute" or a new, involuntary cause of unemployment due to job unavailability. The Supreme Court of Texas, referencing the precedent of Texas Employment Commission v. Hodson, ruled that when jobs are refused due to unavailability after an unconditional offer to return, the original disqualifying cause of the labor dispute is displaced. Consequently, the Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's decision in favor of the petitioners, allowing them to receive benefits.

Unemployment CompensationLabor DisputeStrikeJob DisplacementStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsEmployment BenefitsStoppage of WorkEconomic StrikePermanent Replacement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norris v. Texas Employment Commission

Norris, an employee of Texaco, appealed the denial of unemployment benefits by the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) and the trial court. His unemployment stemmed from a seven-month strike by the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers (OCAW) union against Texaco following failed contract negotiations. Norris, observing picket lines, returned home and made no attempt to resume work, despite other employees crossing the lines. The TEC ruled his unemployment was due to a stoppage of work caused by a labor dispute, disqualifying him from benefits, a decision upheld by the district court under the substantial evidence rule. The appellate court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Norris's unemployment was a claimant's stoppage of work and that he failed to make an unconditional offer to return to work, thus upholding his disqualification for unemployment benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsLabor DisputeWork StoppageStrikePicket LineSubstantial Evidence ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer-Employee RelationshipUnconditional Offer to Return to WorkNew Work Classification
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Armstrong

Plaintiff James W. Armstrong sued Texas Employers’ Insurance Association for worker’s compensation benefits following a ruptured disc injury sustained in 1973 while working for Neuhoff Brothers Packing Company. Despite returning to work for several years after the injury, the jury found in favor of Armstrong, awarding him total and permanent disability benefits plus past medical expenses. The Association appealed, arguing that Armstrong could not be considered totally and permanently disabled while employed and earning wages, and that the jury's findings were against the clear weight of the evidence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that continued employment does not conclusively negate total disability and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. The court also ruled that awarded benefits are not reduced by wages earned post-injury and denied Armstrong's cross-point for damages for a frivolous appeal.

Worker's Compensation LawTotal Permanent DisabilityMedical ExpensesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceContinued EmploymentWage ReductionHerniated DiscAccidental Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Beach

Jesse P. Beach was killed in an automobile accident while returning home from work, transporting three other members of his drilling crew. His wife and son sought workmen’s compensation from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. A jury rendered judgment for Beach’s wife and son, but the insurance carrier appealed. The core legal question was whether Beach’s fatal injuries were sustained in the course of his employment, particularly concerning the use of his personal vehicle for transport and the employer's compensation practices. The appellate court found that Beach's employment contract explicitly excluded payment for transportation time and the use of his vehicle, overturning the jury's verdict and ruling that he was not in the course of his employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentTravel TimeEmployment ContractCustom and UsageAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance ClaimDrilling Company
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Timmy Dale Britt v. Dyer's Employment Agency, Inc.

Timmy Dale Britt, a temporary employee of Dyer's Employment Agency, sustained a work-related injury resulting in carpal tunnel syndrome. Following his injury and the termination of his temporary assignment at Mark IV, Dyer's did not return him to work. The trial court initially applied a lower statutory multiplier to his permanent partial disability benefits, reasoning that Dyer's could not be faulted for the temporary assignment ending. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court vacated this decision, ruling that the higher multiplier should apply. This was based on the fact that Dyer's neither returned Mr. Britt to employment at an equal or greater wage, nor was he terminated for misconduct, making the 'meaningful return to work' concept inapplicable. The case was remanded to the trial court to redetermine the appropriate disability benefits using the greater multiplier.

Workers' CompensationTemporary EmploymentStatutory MultiplierPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical ImpairmentCarpal Tunnel SyndromeEmployer ResponsibilityReturn to Work PolicyRemandTennessee Supreme Court
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 1983

Claim of Wesp v. Liberty National Bank & Trust Co.

The claimant, a bank teller, suffered severe anxiety after being robbed at gunpoint at work and was diagnosed as disabled by her attending psychiatrist. Upon returning to work, she was terminated after her employer discovered she had engaged in activities inconsistent with her disability, such as working as an usherette and attending a beauty pageant. She filed a discrimination complaint under Workers’ Compensation Law § 120, which the Workers’ Compensation Board sustained. The court affirmed this decision, ruling that the employer’s termination was an improper medical determination. The court also dismissed the employer's contention that medical reports were mere hearsay, noting the employer's failure to present counter-evidence.

DiscriminationDisability ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 120Employer TerminationAnxiety DisorderPsychiatric DiagnosisMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewEmployer ResponsibilityOff-Duty Conduct
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Murtaugh v. Bankers Trust Co.

Claimant filed a disability benefits claim for a non-work-related back condition. After an extended absence of 40 days, her employment was terminated by the employer, who cited her doctor's inability to provide a definitive return-to-work date. Claimant subsequently filed a discrimination complaint, alleging her discharge violated Workers' Compensation Law sections 120 and 241, which prohibit employer retaliation for claiming benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that the employer violated the applicable law by terminating her employment. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer's stated reason for termination was insufficient to distinguish it from a prohibited discriminatory discharge, and that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

DiscriminationRetaliationDisability BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawTermination of EmploymentBack ConditionAbsence from WorkSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
2
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. Lee

This worker's compensation case concerns Franklin N. Lee, a carpenter employed by Sabine Consolidated, Inc., who sustained severe injuries on June 28, 1975. The injury occurred after his work shift, within his employer's designated parking area on the construction site, while he was attempting to clear a path for his car by moving a company compressor. The defendant, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, appealed a jury verdict that found Lee's injury occurred in the course of his employment, challenging the application of the 'access doctrine.' The 'access doctrine' posits that employment includes a reasonable margin of time and space for an employee to pass to and from work, extending to injuries sustained on premises owned or controlled by the employer or closely related thereto. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that there was sufficient factual evidence to support the jury's finding under the access doctrine.

Worker's CompensationAccess DoctrineCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilityPremises InjuryJury VerdictAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIngress EgressTexas Civil Statute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 1983

Claim of Lemery v. Flintkote Co.

Claimant, who developed acute pharyngitis and bronchitis in 1967, experienced a significant worsening of his respiratory condition in 1973 when his employer changed to a “dry” cement manufacturing process, exposing him to extreme dust. This exposure led to pneumonia, chronic bronchitis, and eventual incapacitation, forcing him to stop working multiple times. After being advised not to return to work under dusty conditions, he was re-employed as a janitor in a dust-free area, and his symptoms diminished. The Workers' Compensation Board found that his employment exposure aggravated a preexisting nondisabling bronchitis into a disabling condition, allowing his claim for benefits. The employer and carrier appealed, arguing that occupational aggravation of a nonoccupational disease is not compensable. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the ultimate test is whether employment causes a disability that previously did not exist.

Occupational DiseaseAggravation of Preexisting ConditionChronic BronchitisCement Dust ExposureDisabilityCausationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionMedical EvidenceEmployment-Related IllnessRespiratory Illness
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 23,680 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