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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Katrina W.

This child protective proceeding concerns Katrina W., deemed an "abused child" by the Family Court due to her mother's failure to protect her from sexual abuse by an older brother. The appellant mother challenged the constitutionality of the preponderance of the evidence standard in Family Court Act article 10 abuse proceedings, arguing for a higher standard like clear and convincing evidence. The court rejected this argument, affirming that the preponderance of the evidence standard satisfies due process, aligning with precedents for neglect proceedings. The decision emphasized the State's compelling parens patriae interest in child welfare during abuse cases, which outweighs parental interests in this context, where placement is temporary, not an irrevocable termination of parental rights. Additionally, the court found sufficient evidence, including expert medical testimony and Katrina's corroborated statements, to uphold the finding of abuse and affirmed the dispositional order placing Katrina with the agency for one year.

Child AbuseSexual AbuseDue ProcessStandard of ProofPreponderance of EvidenceFamily Court Act Article 10Parental RightsParens PatriaeChild Protective ProceedingCorroboration
References
16
Case No. M2000-00279-SC-WCM-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2001

Margaret Tobitt v. Bridgestone/Fireston, Inc.

The dissenting opinion by Chief Justice E. Riley Anderson in *Margaret Tobitt v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.* reviews an appeal in a workers' compensation case. The Chief Justice emphasizes that appellate review is de novo, with the trial court's findings presumed correct unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. He notes that the employee, Margaret Tobitt, was treated for forearm and knee injuries after the accident, with no evidence of head or face trauma. Paramedics and emergency room staff reported no head injury, and the employee only complained of arm and knee pain. Furthermore, medical evidence, including x-rays and CT scans, showed no jaw fracture, and there was no objective support for an aggravation of a pre-existing jaw injury. Based on this, Chief Justice Anderson concludes that the Special Workers’ Compensation Panel correctly determined the evidence preponderated against the trial court’s finding that the injury arose out of employment, thus dissenting from the majority's decision.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionMedical EvidencePre-existing ConditionJaw InjuryKnee InjuryForearm InjuryTrial Court FindingsDe Novo Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wills v. Robintech, Inc.

Plaintiff Wills sued defendant Robintech in Hill County, Texas, alleging negligence for injuries sustained during employment due to unsafe working conditions and inadequate instruction. The defendant filed a plea of privilege to transfer the case to Tarrant County, its county of residence. The trial court sustained this plea, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence by a preponderance of the evidence, and ordered the case transferred. Wills appealed, arguing errors in the trial court's assessment of negligence evidence and its interpretation of venue rules. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Wills had not met the burden of proving negligence by a preponderance of the evidence in the county of suit, thus upholding the transfer to Tarrant County.

VenuePlea of PrivilegeNegligencePreponderance of EvidenceAppellate ReviewTrial Court FindingsWorkers' CompensationSafe Working EnvironmentEmployer DutiesProximate Cause
References
7
Case No. M2016-00083-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

Vernon Lockhart v. Commissioner of The Tennessee Department of Safety

This appeal arises from a civil forfeiture. Vernon Lockhart was charged and later convicted on a number of criminal counts related to the distribution of large amounts of marijuana. The Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security declared as forfeited certain of Lockhart's properties alleged to be derived from illegal drug transactions. An Administrative Law Judge found in favor of the Department by a preponderance of the evidence, a decision which was affirmed on appeal by the Chancery Court for Davidson County. Lockhart appeals to this Court, arguing that the evidence used against him should have been suppressed and that the ALJ and Trial Court erred by failing to conduct an independent analysis of his suppression issue. The Court of Appeals holds that the ALJ's order of forfeiture was supported by a preponderance of the evidence and that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars Lockhart from re-litigating the suppression issue. The judgment of the Trial Court upholding the ALJ's forfeiture order is affirmed.

Civil ForfeitureDrug TraffickingCollateral EstoppelSuppression of EvidenceExclusionary RulePreponderance of EvidenceAsset ForfeitureCriminal ConvictionAdministrative LawAppellate Review
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teter v. Republic Parking System, Inc.

This case involves an employment contract dispute over severance pay between employee Eric Teter and his former employer, Republic Parking System, Inc. (RPS). Teter was involuntarily terminated, and RPS subsequently ceased severance payments, citing gross misconduct (viewing pornography on a work computer). The trial court and Court of Appeals initially ruled in favor of Teter, requiring RPS to prove misconduct by 'clear and convincing' evidence. The Supreme Court of Tennessee partially reversed this, establishing that a 'preponderance of the evidence' is the correct standard for after-acquired evidence of misconduct in breach of contract actions. The Supreme Court affirmed that Teter's termination was involuntary, that the employment protection plan's payment schedule was incorporated into the contract, and that the severance provisions were not an illegal penalty. However, it remanded the case for trial due to a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether RPS would have immediately fired Teter had the misconduct been known earlier, applying the newly established preponderance standard.

Employment ContractSeverance PayBreach of ContractAfter-acquired EvidenceEmployee MisconductPornographyBurden of ProofPreponderance of EvidenceClear and Convincing EvidenceWrongful Termination
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R & R CONTRACTORS v. Torres

This case involves an appeal by R & R Contractors and R & R Oilfield Services, Inc. (appellant) against the judgment favoring the widow and children of Gregorio Torres, Jr. (appellees), a truck driver who died in a workplace accident. The jury had found R & R grossly negligent and awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. The appeal raised two issues: legal sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a "clear and convincing evidence" standard for gross negligence. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by applying the "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which was legally required. Despite finding reversible error, the court also reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and concluded there was sufficient evidence to uphold the finding. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesLegal SufficiencyStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceStatutory Construction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Caballero

Saul Caballero, who pleaded guilty to two drug conspiracies (heroin and methamphetamine distribution), objected to an aggravating role enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines, arguing it would increase his mandatory-minimum sentence and thus require a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt as per Alleyne v. United States. Following a two-day Fatico hearing, the District Court concluded that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Caballero was a manager or supervisor of the heroin distribution conspiracy, but not the crystal methamphetamine conspiracy. The Court also rejected Caballero's argument that Alleyne mandates a jury to determine safety-valve eligibility, affirming that judicial fact-finding by a preponderance of the evidence for safety-valve criteria is constitutionally permissible as it potentially lessens, rather than increases, the mandatory minimum sentence. Therefore, the defendant's motion for a jury determination was denied.

Sentencing GuidelinesAggravating Role EnhancementMandatory Minimum SentenceSafety Valve EligibilityDrug ConspiracyHeroin DistributionMethamphetamine DistributionPreponderance of EvidenceJury DeterminationConstitutional Law
References
24
Case No. N-4317/92
Regular Panel Decision

In re Oneida Q.

In a child protective proceeding, the father appealed three dispositional orders from June 9, 1993, and fact-finding orders from February 22, 1993, which found Racielli C. to be an abused and neglected child, and Arodi C. and Hanameel C. to be neglected children. The mother, Oneida Q., appealed a dispositional order from June 9, 1993, which found her to have neglected Racielli C. The appellate court reversed the fact-finding order against Oneida Q. concerning the neglect of Racielli C. and dismissed that part of the petition. However, the court affirmed the dispositional orders against the father, finding that the determination of sexual abuse against his daughter Racielli C. was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including the child's out-of-court statements corroborated by reenactment with dolls. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the mother's neglect of Racielli C. by a preponderance of the evidence, as there was no indication she knew or should have known of imminent danger.

Child protective servicesChild abuseChild neglectSexual abuseFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate reviewSufficiency of evidencePreponderance of evidenceOut-of-court statementsCorroboration
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,073 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