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. 81-367
Regular Panel Decision

Dabbs v. Vergari

Petitioner, convicted of first-degree rape, sought to compel the District Attorney to permit DNA testing of physical evidence from his criminal trial (indictment No. 81-367). The evidence, including semen and bodily secretions, had yielded inconclusive results at his 1984 trial but could now be conclusively tested using modern DNA analysis. The respondent District Attorney opposed the request, arguing a lack of statutory right to post-conviction discovery and the speculative nature of the application. The court recharacterized the request as a post-conviction motion for discovery in the criminal action. It affirmed a constitutional right to exculpatory information and found that where preserved evidence has high exculpatory potential, it should be discoverable. The court granted the petition, ordering the transfer of the physical evidence to Lifecodes, Inc. for DNA testing, emphasizing the importance of correcting potential miscarriages of justice.

DNA TestingPost-Conviction DiscoveryCPLR Article 78CPL Article 440Rape First DegreeExculpatory EvidenceBrady v MarylandDue ProcessForensic EvidenceRight to Fair Trial
References
31
Case No. 07-03-0383-CR; 07-03-0384-CR; 07-03-0385-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

David Matthew Layton v. State

David Matthew Layton, convicted of aggravated kidnapping and aggravated sexual assault of a child, appealed the denial of his motions for post-conviction forensic DNA testing. He argued that the trial court erred in denying these motions, asserting that exculpatory DNA results would have prevented his conviction. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo reviewed his claims, noting that his arguments largely rehashed prior challenges to the sufficiency of evidence. The court concluded that Layton failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he would not have been convicted if exculpatory DNA testing results had been obtained. Consequently, the trial court's denial of the DNA testing motions was affirmed.

Criminal LawAggravated KidnappingAggravated Sexual AssaultDNA TestingPost-Conviction ReliefAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureDenial of MotionAffirmed Conviction
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
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. 13-05-371-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2008

Esteban Trevino Villegas v. State

Esteban Trevino Villegas was convicted of capital murder for the death of his ten-week-old son, Alex, who suffered from a skull fracture, intracranial bleeding, and multiple bone fractures. The injuries occurred while Alex was in appellant's sole care and were determined to be caused by shaken baby syndrome or shaken impact syndrome. Villegas appealed, raising issues concerning the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of his motion for a new trial (citing newly discovered evidence and alleged juror misconduct), the State's purported withholding of exculpatory evidence, and inappropriate prosecutorial comments during closing arguments. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's decisions regarding evidence sufficiency, the motion for new trial, or the prosecutor's remarks.

Capital MurderChild AbuseShaken Baby SyndromeShaken Impact SyndromeLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceMotion for New TrialNewly Discovered EvidenceBrady ViolationExculpatory Evidence
References
63
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. Patino

The defendant, a police officer, moved to dismiss an indictment charging him with offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and defrauding the government. These charges stemmed from allegations that he falsely claimed permanent disability and improperly collected money from Nassau County. The defendant's motion to dismiss was based on claims of selective and vindictive prosecution, defective Grand Jury proceedings (improper instructions and failure to introduce exculpatory evidence), legally insufficient evidence, and a defective indictment. The court, presided over by Jack Mackston, J., denied the motion to dismiss, finding no evidence of selective or vindictive prosecution by the District Attorney, adequate Grand Jury instructions, and legally sufficient evidence. The court also denied dismissal in the interest of justice but partially granted a motion for disclosure of certain statistics.

Criminal Procedure LawGrand JuryIndictmentSelective ProsecutionVindictive ProsecutionFalse InstrumentGrand LarcenyGovernment FraudPolice Misconduct AllegationsDisability Fraud
References
13
Case No. WR-82,828-01
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

Anderson, Rodney Young

Rodney Anderson, the applicant, files preliminary protective objections to the Trial Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a habeas corpus proceeding. Anderson contends that his due process rights were violated due to the State's suppression of favorable and material evidence under Brady v. Maryland. He objects to the Trial Court's conclusions regarding: 1) exculpatory witness statements from Paras and Brummet that would have shown officers were not identifiable as law enforcement during his arrest, crucial for the aggravated assault charge; 2) the undisclosed contingency fee agreement and true nature of the deal with confidential informant Jeffery Harmon, which could impeach Harmon's testimony; and 3) the extent of misconduct and significant role of crime scene investigator Caryn McAnarney in collecting evidence, impacting the chain of custody and integrity of the drug evidence. Anderson seeks relief, arguing that the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the jury's verdict and warrants reconsideration.

Habeas CorpusBrady ViolationSuppressed EvidenceDue ProcessExculpatory EvidenceImpeachment EvidenceConfidential InformantContingency FeePolice MisconductChain of Custody
References
13
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 15,090 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