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. 2017-06-0049
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2017

Farrington, Linda v. NIA Association

Linda Farrington sought an expedited hearing for additional medical benefits, specifically a referral to an orthopedic specialist, after sustaining head and neck injuries at work. Her employer, NIA Association, denied the request, relying on the authorized treating physician, Dr. Stephen Kent, who opined that her current need for treatment was unrelated to the work accident. Ms. Farrington presented a referral from her primary care physician, Dr. Gaskin, as rebuttal evidence. The Court acknowledged that Dr. Kent's causation opinion was presumed correct under Tennessee law, and despite concerns about the framing of his causation inquiry and his reliance on surveillance, found Ms. Farrington's rebuttal evidence insufficient. Consequently, the Court denied her request for medical benefits, concluding she was unlikely to prevail on the merits at a full hearing.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsOrthopedic ReferralCausationPre-existing ConditionMaximum Medical ImprovementSymptom MagnificationSurveillance VideoTreating Physician
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scodary v. Serritella

Claimant established a work-related neck and left arm injury, receiving workers’ compensation benefits for a brief period in December 2003. Her employment was terminated in January 2004, leading to new issues regarding further causally related disability, consequential depression, and withdrawal from the labor market. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied her claim for consequential depression, asserting that her psychologist's treatment lacked the required referral from an authorized physician under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13-m (2) (a). The appellate court ruled this exclusion of evidence was an error, stating the statute does not create an evidentiary barrier to a psychologist's testimony and records, even without a physician referral. Consequently, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the exclusion of evidence for consequential depression, and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsConsequential DepressionPsychologist TestimonyReferral RequirementEvidentiary StandardsCausally Related DisabilityLoss of EarningsAppellate ReviewRemittalMedical Evidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apresa v. Montfort Insurance Co.

Justice Larsen dissents, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff the opportunity to reopen evidence for a "simple, technical point essential to his case." The dissent highlights the second prong of the standard for reopening evidence under Tex.R.Civ.P. 270, emphasizing that discretion should be liberally exercised to fully develop a case in the interest of justice. Justice Larsen applies the four factors from Hill v. Melton: decisiveness, no undue delay, prevention of injustice, and diligence. The dissent concludes that the proffered testimony was decisive, its reception would not cause undue delay, and refusing it resulted in injustice, particularly in a workers' compensation case where laws should be liberally construed. The dissent also argues that the majority misapplies the diligence requirement, which should apply after a party rests and closes its case, not during the case-in-chief, especially when evidence had not yet been closed.

Appellate ProcedureReopening EvidenceTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionInterest of JusticeDiligence RequirementWorkers' Compensation LawTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureDissenting OpinionManifest Injustice
References
9
Case No. ADJ3156337 (FRE 0209931) ADJ4199467 (FRE 0209932)
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

FRANK FLORES vs. NICKEL'S PAYLESS STORES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for a 1999 right foot and ankle injury, specifically addressing the defendant's claims of error in permanent disability calculation without apportionment and the exclusion of medical evidence. The Board intends to admit the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports into evidence, which the WCJ had previously excluded. This decision will allow the Board to review all relevant medical evidence before making a final determination on apportionment and the applicant's claimed injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and OrderMinutes of Hearing
References
0
Case No. ADJ8518632
Regular
May 09, 2017

HORACIO MONTOYA vs. CBC FRAMING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, A B GALLAGHER BASSETT

The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a prior WCJ order compelling a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Removal was granted because the WCJ's order was based on a medical report that had not been formally admitted into evidence, preventing meaningful review. The Board will now admit the defendant's medical report into evidence for the limited purpose of determining the Petition for Removal. This action is an extraordinary remedy due to the prejudice caused by relying on unadmitted evidence.

RemovalFunctional Capacity EvaluationIndustrial InjuryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdmitted EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluationExhibit AAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Removal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 1975

Abeyta v. Travelers Insurance Co.

In this workers' compensation case, the plaintiff challenged the jury's findings that his injury was not the producing cause of any total or partial incapacity. He also contended that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of unemployment compensation benefits. The plaintiff sustained an injury on June 28, 1974, while working for W. D. Turner Construction Company, but medical examinations showed no objective findings of injury and he returned to work. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the jury's decision was supported by ample evidence and that any error in admitting evidence of unemployment benefits was harmless.

Workers' CompensationSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsProducing CauseIncapacityUnemployment BenefitsAdmissibility of EvidenceHarmless ErrorMedical EvidenceEmployment History
References
5
Case No. 2016-07-0772
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

Jacks, Bonnie v. Camden Healthcare/Northpoint Senior Services, LLC

Bonnie Jacks, an employee of Northpoint, sustained a left shoulder injury in 2015. She requested an expedited hearing for additional medical benefits and approval of physician referrals to orthopedic and pain management specialists, as well as payment of outstanding medical bills. The employer, Northpoint, failed to provide a panel of physicians as required by law, instead offering Dr. Berry and later accepting a referral to Dr. Chandler. The Court found Ms. Jacks entitled to a panel of physicians for an orthopedic evaluation and ordered Northpoint to approve Dr. Berry’s referral to Tennessee Orthopedic Alliance. Additionally, Northpoint was ordered to pay Dr. Berry's outstanding bills totaling $340.00. The Court denied Ms. Jacks' counsel's request for attorney's fees but referred the case to the Penalty Unit for consideration of a penalty against Northpoint for failing to timely provide a panel of physicians.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsExpedited HearingPhysician PanelOrthopedic ReferralPain ManagementAttorney's Fees DeniedPenalty Unit ReferralRotator Cuff TearShoulder Injury
References
3
Case No. 2019-01-0368
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2020

Ibarra, Grecia v. Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.

Employee Grecia Ibarra reported back pain after lifting totes at work and sought medical benefits. After initial treatment and a referral to an orthopedic specialist by Dr. Natasha Ballard, Amazon declined the referral, asserting Ibarra failed to provide proper notice or identify a specific injury incident. The trial court ordered Amazon to provide a panel of orthopedic specialists. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order, finding Ibarra provided sufficient notice and evidence of a work-related condition resulting from a "set of incidents," and that the physician's referral was presumed medically necessary. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryMedical BenefitsOrthopedic ReferralNotice of InjuryCumulative TraumaExpedited HearingMedical CausationEmployer ObligationsEmployee Rights
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 15,185 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