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. ADJ3858007 (SBR 0314079)
Regular
May 26, 2016

RONALD STEFFY vs. H STREET COLLISION CENTER, INC., FARMERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal of an Order Vacating Submission. The judge vacated submission to further develop the record due to insufficient evidence, finding the Agreed Medical Examiner's opinions unpersuasive after reviewing medical records and sub rosa video evidence. The Board found the order did not cause significant prejudice or irreparable harm, as it allows for a complete adjudication of issues, including medication usage and permanent disability. Further medical-legal examinations were ordered to develop a record capable of supporting findings on impairment and causation.

Petition for RemovalOrder Vacating SubmissionAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)McDuffieLabor Code section 5701sub rosa videoinsubstantial evidencepermanent disabilitycausationvocational rehabilitation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Percell

Mary E. Percell was awarded workers' compensation benefits for total and permanent incapacity due to a 1977 injury. The Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (T.E.I.A.) appealed the judgment, contending that the trial court's jury charge improperly commented on the weight of the evidence. Specifically, T.E.I.A. objected to special issues 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, which assumed the fact of injury without conditional submission, despite the initial issue asking if an injury occurred. The appellate court found that the unconditional submission of these dependent issues constituted a prohibited direct comment on the weight of the evidence, in violation of Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 277. This error was deemed reversible, as it indicated an opinion by the trial court on the verity of Mrs. Percell’s injury. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Jury Charge ErrorWeight of EvidenceSpecial Issues (Jury)Reversible ErrorAppellate ReviewPermanent IncapacityAssumed FactsTexas Civil ProcedureTrial Court ErrorJudicial Comment
References
8
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. ADJ3912308 (LBO 0367834)
Regular
Nov 16, 2012

LEOPOLDO SIMOTA vs. AMERICAN NURSERIES, VIRGINIA SURETY, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's decision to disallow the lien. The lien claimant argued they had submitted sufficient evidence via EAMS, but the Board clarified that filing in EAMS does not equate to submitting admissible evidence for evaluation. The Board emphasized that proper evidentiary procedures must be followed, citing due process and fundamental rules of evidence submission. Consequently, the lien claimant's failure to properly present evidence led to the denial of their petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantUniversity Imaging CenterPetition for ReconsiderationOrder denyingWCJEAMSsubmission of evidenceadmissibilitydue process
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2010

Claim of Cary v. Salem Central School District

The claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that rescinded her reduced earnings awards, contending that there was sufficient medical evidence of a continuing causally related disability. The WCLJ had initially awarded reduced earnings and classified the claimant as permanently partially disabled due to a 2003 accident, but the Board later found insufficient medical evidence and rescinded the awards. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence, including numerous reports from treating physicians and the carrier's own medical expert, supported a continuing disability. The court ruled that gaps in the submission of medical reports alone did not constitute substantial evidence to support the recision of the reduced earnings awards, and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Reduced Earnings AwardsMedical Evidence SufficiencyContinuing DisabilityTreating Physician ReportsWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionBoard Decision ReversalPermanent Partial DisabilityCausally Related DisabilityMedical Report Gaps
References
1
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harry v. University of Texas System

Justice McCollum concurs with the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case, but departs on the issue of broad form jury submission. The Appellant, Nelda Harry, complained that the trial court erred in conjunctively submitting the issues of injury and producing cause of incapacity, which placed an undue burden on her to prove incapacity for medical benefits. McCollum argues that Article 8306, section 7, entitles a worker to medical care for an injury regardless of incapacity, and the conjunctive submission was not feasible, constituting an abuse of discretion and resulting in an incomplete verdict. The opinion highlights the importance of disjunctive submission to ensure all claims for relief are properly adjudicated.

Jury SubmissionBroad Form SubmissionConjunctive SubmissionWorkers' CompensationMedical BenefitsIncapacity to LaborAbuse of DiscretionIncomplete VerdictTexas Civil ProcedureJury Charge
References
5
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,264 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