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

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. 03-14-00735-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Entergy Texas, Inc.// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Entergy Texas, Inc.

The Commission’s Order should be affirmed. The Commission reasonably interpreted its prior rate-case order, the Black-box Order, to authorize Entergy to book and amortize a regulatory asset for unrecovered Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs. The Black-box Order was ambiguous concerning the Rita Asset. That order was based on a “black box” settlement—one where only the amount of rates to be collected was set forth, not all of the individual components of a rate case. Because the Black-box Order did not explicitly state whether booking and amortizing the regulatory asset had been authorized, it was ambiguous. Courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its prior, ambiguous order, and the evidence in the record supports the Commission’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that $13 million should be added to Entergy’s storm reserve based on the expenses Entergy incurred to repair equipment after a severe ice storm in 1997. A prior Commission decision that faulted Entergy for poor service quality did not amount to a finding that Entergy could not include the repair costs in the insurance reserve amount. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy failed to meet its burden to prove that predicted purchased-power capacity costs were known-and-measurable changes to the test-year data. The record supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy did not meet its burden of proving that requested changes were known and measurable. For example, Entergy based its arguments about purchasing capacity on the assumption that it would always purchase the maximum amount under new contracts. Entergy claimed that it would have more customers in the future. Not only is that speculative, but the utility failed to account for how additional customers would otherwise affect its recovery through rates. And Entergy’s arguments about transmission charges are controlled by numerous unknown variables used in a complex formula. The Commission’s test-year rule is created to avoid just such unknowns. Moreover, most of Entergy’s request for post-test-year changes to transmission costs were based on an agreement that was still waiting for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is patently not a “known” change. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decisions, the Order should be affirmed.

Utility RegulationRate CasePublic Utility CommissionAppellate BriefHurricane Rita CostsRegulatory AssetStorm Damage ReservePurchased Power CapacityTransmission EqualizationAdministrative Law
References
24
Case No. ADJ10257811
Regular
Dec 18, 2020

JORGE ANDRADE vs. CECILIO ARREDONDO TERREZAS, STAR INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the judge's decision finding the applicant was not an employee at the time of injury, concluding he failed to meet his burden of proof. The applicant did not provide evidence establishing an employment relationship with the labor contractor or its associated individuals, and evidence indicated he paid for his own transportation. A dissenting opinion argued the board and judge incorrectly shifted the burden of proof, stating the applicant is presumed an employee and the employer must prove otherwise. The dissent would have rescinded the decision for failure to meet the employer's burden.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderEmployee StatusLabor ContractorBurden of ProofEmployment RelationshipPresumption of EmployeeLabor CodeRebuttal of Presumption
References
5
Case No. 03-14-00012-CV
Regular Panel Decision

State Office of Risk Management v. Katina A. Edwards

The Appellant, State Office of Risk Management, files this Reply Brief arguing that the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC), violated its due process rights by failing to require the Appellee, Katina A. Edwards, to provide evidence-based expert medical evidence for her occupational disease claim, thereby improperly placing the burden of proof. Appellant asserts that venue is mandatory in Travis County under government code provisions, as the dispute concerns procedural errors rather than compensability or benefits. It contends that a de novo review would not rectify the due process violation and that no declaratory judgment action was required. Appellant seeks to reverse the administrative order regarding compensability and disability, requesting a remand to the DWC for proper application of the burden of proof and evidence.

Due ProcessWorkers' CompensationAdministrative LawBurden of ProofEvidenceVenueJudicial ReviewRemandAppellate BriefOccupational Disease
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re D. M.

D.M., a thirteen-year-old boy with ADHD, set fire to his school, causing over $100,000 in damages. The trial court ordered D.M.'s parents to pay $25,000 in restitution as part of a 12-month in-home probation. The parents appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to support the restitution amount and that the governing statutes violate the "open courts" provision of the Texas Constitution and due process by improperly assigning the burden of proof for "good faith efforts" to prevent delinquent behavior. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the family code places the burden on parents to prove good faith efforts as a defense to liability, which does not violate due process. It also found no "open courts" violation as no common law cause of action was abridged. The court further determined there was sufficient evidence to support the restitution order, considering the parents' lack of evidence for discouraging fire experimentation, their blaming of the school, and the rehabilitative effect on D.M.

Juvenile justiceParental liabilityRestitutionDelinquent conductTexas Family CodeDue processOpen courtsConstitutional lawCriminal mischiefProbation
References
35
Case No. ADJ909554 (LAO 0824849), ADJ1856854 (LAO 0837910)
En Banc
Nov 15, 2012

Tito Torres vs. AJC Sandblasting, Zurich North America

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board disallowed a lien claim, affirming that a lien claimant must prove all elements of their case by a preponderance of evidence and cannot shift the burden of proof to the defendant merely by submitting a bill. The Board also found that proceeding to trial with evidence incapable of meeting this burden constitutes frivolous, bad-faith tactics warranting sanctions.

WCABEN BANCLIEN CLAIMANTBURDEN OF PROOFPREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCEPRIMA FACIE CASESANCTIONSBAD FAITHFRIVOLOUSLABOR CODE SECTION 5705
References
16
Case No. ADJ1295034 (VNO 0535536) ADJ181910 (VNO 0535585)
Regular

LINDA FREEMAN vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Linda Freeman's petition for reconsideration. Freeman sought reimbursement for costs under Labor Code section 5811, but the Board found she failed to meet her burden of proof. The Administrative Law Judge's report, incorporated by the Board, noted that crucial documents supporting Freeman's claim were not admitted into evidence. Therefore, based on the lack of substantial evidence and failure to meet the evidentiary burden, reconsideration was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedBurden of ProofAffirmative of the IssuePreponderance of the EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceLabor Code Section 5705Labor Code Section 3202.5Labor Code Section 5952(d)
References
1
Case No. ADJ3882013
Regular
Mar 22, 2023

TERESA LARA vs. DAUGHTERS OF MARY AND JOSEPH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Dental Trauma Center's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the lien claimant failed to prove applicant sustained industrial injury to the psyche, headaches, or TMJ/mouth/jaw/teeth. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Dental Trauma Center did not meet its burden of proof as it failed to present substantial medical evidence supporting these claims. Consequently, the burden never shifted to the defendant to provide rebuttal evidence. The Board also addressed and rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding proper referral, lack of incorporation, and the binding nature of the Compromise and Release.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantStatute of LimitationsBurden of ProofSubstantial Medical EvidencePrima Facie CaseRebuttal EvidenceProper ReferralCompromise and Release
References
5
Case No. 13-03-038-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

Tina Bruno v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co. of Kansas

This workers' compensation case involved an appeal by Tina Bruno, individually and as natural guardian of Charles Bruno, deceased, and Jasime Bruno, a minor, against Trinity Universal Insurance Company of Kansas. The appellants contested the trial court's finding that Charles Bruno was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of his death. They argued the evidence was legally and factually insufficient and that the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof. The Court of Appeals, Thirteenth District of Texas, affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding regarding Charles Bruno's employment status at the time of the incident and that the burden of proof was not impermissibly shifted.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentDeath BenefitsLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fitzgerald v. BTR Sealing Systems North America-Tennessee Operations

This workers' compensation case involves Donald Fitzgerald, an employee, seeking to compel BTR Sealing Systems North America to cover shoulder joint replacement surgery for a 1997 work injury. Despite a prior settlement leaving future medical benefits open, BTR refused the surgery, arguing lack of causation. The trial court sided with Fitzgerald, ordering the treatment. On appeal, BTR contended the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof and that evidence did not support causation. The appellate court affirmed, finding no burden shifting and sufficient evidence to link the surgery need to the original 1997 injury, compelling BTR to provide the recommended medical treatment.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryMedical TreatmentCausationDegenerative ArthritisJoint ReplacementBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyPreponderance of Evidence
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 15,829 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