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' 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. 2016-07-0351
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2016

Crumble, Mae v. Express Employment Services

Mae Crumble appealed a trial court's decision entitling her to a panel of orthopedic specialists after her employer, Express Employment Services, denied her claim based on an occupational medicine practitioner's opinion. The employer initially provided a panel including walk-in facilities and an occupational medicine practitioner, from which Crumble selected WorkCare, leading to an examination by Dr. Conrado Sioson. Dr. Sioson opined the injury was not work-related, leading the employer to deny the claim, but the trial court subsequently ordered an orthopedic panel, expressing doubts about the validity of the initial panel and Dr. Sioson's selection. The Appeals Board found the trial court did not definitively resolve key issues, such as whether a valid medical panel was provided or if Dr. Sioson was a properly selected treating physician whose causation opinion should be presumed correct and, if so, whether that presumption was rebutted. Consequently, the Appeals Board vacated the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a determination of these unresolved issues.

Workers' Compensation AppealInterlocutory AppealMedical CausationPanel of PhysiciansTreating Physician PresumptionEmployer Designated PanelNotice of InjuryVacated and RemandedExpedited HearingOrthopedic Specialists
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Lashlee v. Pepsi-Cola Newburgh Bottling

The Special Disability Fund appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board concerning a claimant's average weekly wage calculation. The claimant, injured while employed by Pepsi-Cola, also had concurrent employment with Mid-Hudson Limousine Service, Inc. and Robert H. Auchmoody Funeral Homes, Inc. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) included Auchmoody as a concurrent employer, increasing the claimant's average weekly wage. The Fund argued that Auchmoody should not be considered a "covered" employer because there was no proof of workers' compensation insurance. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ’s decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that "covered" employment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6) refers to an employer subject to the Workers’ Compensation Law, irrespective of whether they actually carried an insurance policy, and that the law must be liberally construed in favor of employees.

Workers’ CompensationConcurrent EmploymentAverage Weekly WageCovered EmploymentIndependent ContractorSpecial Disability FundInsurance PolicyLiberal ConstructionAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employment Commission v. Southside Independent School District

This appeal concerns a summary judgment that reversed the Texas Employment Commission's decision to grant unemployment benefits to Albert A. Sendejo, a substitute teacher for the Southside Independent School District. The Commission contested this reversal, arguing the trial court erred because its initial decision was supported by substantial evidence and Sendejo was "totally unemployed" under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act. The appellate court disagreed, concluding that Sendejo remained employed by the school district and therefore did not meet the definition of "unemployed" for compensation purposes. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that the employer-employee relationship had not terminated. This decision highlights the legal interpretation of unemployment within the context of substitute teaching and the substantial evidence rule governing appeals of commission decisions.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployment LawTexasSubstantial EvidenceSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtSubstitute TeacherEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory InterpretationTexas Employment Commission
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pacific Employers Insurance v. Dayton

Appellant Pacific Employers Insurance Company appealed a jury's finding that appellee Ruthann Dayton was entitled to Lifetime Income Benefits (LIBs) under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act due to total loss of use of her hands. Dayton, a former riveter, suffered carpal tunnel syndrome and underwent multiple surgeries. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel had previously determined her entitlement to LIBs. Pacific Employers challenged the trial court's judgment, arguing insufficient evidence, an improper jury charge regarding the definition of "total loss of use", and erroneous attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding, the jury charge correctly applied the law, and the attorney's fees award was proper.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsTotal Loss of UseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeAppellate ReviewJury VerdictEvidentiary SufficiencyMedical ImpairmentTreating PhysicianOccupational Health
References
21
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. Lockstedt

Texas Employers’ Insurance Association appealed a judgment from the 24th Judicial District Court of Victoria County, which awarded Lloyd G. Lockstedt temporary total incapacity under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law for a compensable occupational disease. The appeal centered on the trial court's failure to submit requested issues and qualify definitions related to Article 8306, Section 27, which states compensation limits when an occupational disease can be arrested by employment change or medical treatment. The appellate court found that the evidence supported these defenses and the requested issues were in substantially correct form. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Occupational DiseaseWorkmen's CompensationTemporary Total IncapacityChange of EmploymentMedical TreatmentContact DermatitisChromatesJury InstructionsAffirmative DefensesReversible Error
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schaefer v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Bobby G. Schaefer, a plumber, sued Texas Employers’ Insurance Association claiming his 'atypical tuberculosis' (Group III mycobacterium intracellularis) was an occupational disease due to his work in contaminated soil and near fowl. Schaefer's treating physician, Dr. William E. Anderson, testified that the disease was employment-related based on reasonable medical probability. However, no definitive proof linked the specific bacterial strain to Schaefer's work environment through serotyping or soil samples. The trial court's judgment in Schaefer's favor was reversed by the court of civil appeals, which found insufficient evidence. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of civil appeals' decision, ruling that Dr. Anderson's opinion was speculative and that the disease was not proven to be occupational.

Occupational DiseaseAtypical TuberculosisMycobacterium IntracellularisCausationExpert Medical TestimonyReasonable Medical ProbabilityNo Evidence PointWorkers' Compensation ActOrdinary Diseases of LifePlumbing Trade
References
17
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,592 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