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

Redd v. Texas Employment Commission

Stella M. Redd, a former employee of Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, was compulsorily retired at age 65 and subsequently filed for unemployment benefits with the Texas Employment Commission. Her claim was initially denied on the grounds of voluntary resignation without good cause and later for ineligibility due to failing to actively seek work. The Commission and trial court affirmed these decisions. This appellate court reversed the finding of voluntary leaving, holding that compulsory retirement is not voluntary in the statutory sense. However, the court upheld the Commission's finding that Redd was ineligible for benefits because she failed to demonstrate active and diligent efforts to secure new employment, thereby not being "available for work" as required by law.

Unemployment CompensationCompulsory RetirementVoluntary TerminationEligibility for BenefitsAvailability for WorkCollective BargainingPension PlansStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawSubstantial Evidence
References
38
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

Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Wade

This appeal concerns a workmen's compensation suit initiated by Ettie Mae Wade et al. against Texas Employers Insurance Association, seeking compensation for Henry G. Wade's death, allegedly caused by employment injuries at Dow Chemical Company. A jury found for the appellees, awarding a lump sum. The appellant challenged the admission of hearsay testimony under the res gestae rule and argued improper and inflammatory statements by appellees' counsel during closing arguments. While the court upheld the trial court's discretion on the res gestae issue, it found portions of the closing argument to be prejudicial and improper. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial due to these errors in counsel's argument.

Workmen's CompensationAccidental DeathIndustrial Accident BoardHearsay Rule ExceptionRes GestaeAttorney MisconductClosing ArgumentJury PrejudiceReversible ErrorTrial Court Discretion
References
13
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

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

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Stone

Claimant Everett C. Stone, an employee of Baker & Taylor Drilling Company, sued Texas Employers’ Insurance Association for workmen's compensation after sustaining a serious back injury during employment. The Methodist Hospital of Dallas and Drs. Nash and Patterson intervened, seeking recovery for medical services. The jury found total and permanent disability, and the court awarded judgment accordingly, also granting recovery to the intervenors. The insurer appealed, arguing that a successful operation limited recovery to twenty-six weeks. The court found that the operation did not effect a cure and that Stone was entitled to recovery for total disability, overruling the insurer's first point. The court reversed and remanded the judgment due to the conditional submission of the partial incapacity issue, which was deemed reversible error as it should have been submitted unconditionally.

Workers' CompensationSpinal FusionBack InjuryTotal DisabilityPartial DisabilityMedical ExpensesSurgical InterventionJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewConditional Submission
References
14
Case No. 2015-07-0004
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2015

Burton, Lovell v. Express Employment Services

Lovell Burton, the Employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing seeking further medical benefits from Express Employment Services, the Employer, following a left hand injury sustained on July 16, 2014, while using a nail gun. The Workers' Compensation Judge conducted a hearing on March 25, 2015. Mr. Burton represented himself and contended his ongoing pain and numbness were directly related to the injury, despite missing a follow-up appointment. Express argued Mr. Burton failed to comply with treatment recommendations and that the authorized treating physician, Dr. Ellis, opined the current complaints were not primarily related to the original injury. The Court found that Mr. Burton's claim for additional medical benefits was denied because he failed to rebut Dr. Ellis's opinion that the current symptoms were not 51% or more related to the compensable injury.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingLeft Hand InjuryPuncture WoundCausationTreating Physician OpinionBurden of ProofMedical EvidenceNerve Conduction Study
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employment Commission v. Checker Cab Co. of El Paso

Checker Cab Company of El Paso initiated a lawsuit against the Texas Employment Commission and Roberto H. Urteaga, seeking judicial review of a Commission decision that found Urteaga eligible for unemployment benefits and imposed a $512.80 charge-back on Checker Cab's account. The central issue was whether the district court possessed jurisdiction over the dispute, which hinges on the 'amount in controversy.' The appellate court determined that the alleged $512.80 'charge-back of benefit wages' did not constitute an amount in controversy exceeding $500, as it would not directly increase the employer's tax liability by that sum. Consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction, leading to the reversal of its judgment and the dismissal of the case.

Unemployment CompensationJudicial ReviewJurisdictionAmount in ControversyCharge-backBenefit WagesTexas LawDistrict CourtAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2014

Matter of Watts v. Arnot Ogden Medical Center

The case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant's entitlement to lost earnings due to a cervical injury sustained in 2007. Initially, the Board found the claimant not attached to the labor market for a period in 2009, but later determined she had a permanent total disability from November 2009 and reattached to the labor market by January 2011. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier sought reconsideration and full Board review, which were denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the claimant's active efforts to seek employment within her medical restrictions, thereby demonstrating her reattachment to the labor market. An appeal from one of the earlier Board decisions was dismissed as moot.

Labor Market AttachmentPermanent Total DisabilityMedical RestrictionsAppeals Court ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationReconsideration DenialVocational ServicesEmployment SearchDisability BenefitsCervical Injury
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 18,409 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