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. NO. 03-06-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2009

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Samuel Campos, an employee, was injured on the job, leading to disputes over his impairment rating and reimbursement for travel expenses. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed a designated doctor's 6% impairment rating and denied travel expenses, which Campos challenged in court. The case involved the Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) because Campos's employer's insurer became impaired. Initially filed in Winkler County, the case was transferred to Travis County, where TPCIGA was granted summary judgment. The Third District Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, ruling that the Workers' Compensation Act's specific mandatory venue provision, which places venue in the county of the employee's residence at the time of injury (Winkler County), overrides the Guaranty Act's general venue provision, which would place it in Travis County. The court remanded the case with instructions to transfer it to Winkler County.

Workers' CompensationVenue DisputeMandatory VenueStatutory ConstructionTexas Labor CodeTexas Insurance CodeImpairment RatingTravel Expenses ReimbursementJudicial ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. 03-06-00404-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2007

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involves a restricted appeal filed by Johnnie M. Charles from a trial court's order dismissing her cause without prejudice. Charles initially appealed a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission decision regarding her impairment rating. After a venue transfer to Travis County, her case was dismissed for failure to pay filing fees. A nunc pro tunc order was later issued to correct a clerical error in the cause number of the original dismissal order. Charles appealed, citing errors in the dismissal, the lack of a court reporter, and the original hearing. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that Charles's challenges to the original dismissal were untimely and that no error occurred in the nunc pro tunc order, which merely corrected a clerical error without altering the original judgment's substance.

restricted appealdismissal without prejudicenunc pro tunc orderclerical errorwant of prosecutionappellate jurisdictiontimeliness of appealTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Appellate Procedureworkers' compensation
References
13
Case No. 03-08-00483-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2010

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Doris J. Toberny, an exhibit decorator, injured her back on the job in May 2000, leading to spinal-fusion surgery that also corrected pre-existing scoliosis. Initially, her employer's insurer, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association for Reliance National Insurance Company ('the Company'), paid for the surgery. However, in December 2001, the Company disputed the claim, asserting the injury was only a lower back strain and not the cause of her scoliosis. After a designated doctor assigned Toberny a 25-percent impairment rating in 2002, the Company paid supplemental income benefits for eight quarters. Three years later, in September 2005, the Company sought to dispute her impairment rating and discontinue benefits, claiming her pre-existing conditions were not compensable. The Division of Workers’ Compensation and the district court found that the Company had waived its right to contest the impairment rating under former rule 130.102(g) due to late dispute filing, and affirmed Toberny's 25-percent impairment rating and entitlement to benefits. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the validity of rule 130.102(g) and the finding of waiver, thus confirming Toberny's impairment rating and attorney's fees.

Workers' CompensationImpairment Rating DisputeSupplemental Income BenefitsWaiver DoctrineCompensability of InjuryExtent of InjuryJudicial Review of Agency DecisionTexas Appeals CourtAdministrative Rule ValidityMaximum Medical Improvement
References
12
Case No. 2016-03-0413
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Deborah Dodson, an employee of LHC Group, injured her left ankle and right knee in May 2015. She underwent knee surgery and was placed at maximum medical improvement by Dr. Johnson. She later developed small fiber neuropathy, and despite a referral, faced difficulties obtaining a neurologic impairment evaluation. The Court granted Ms. Dodson's request for a neurologic impairment evaluation, either by Dr. Butler or another neurologist, referring Dr. Butler to the Penalty Program for failure to provide an impairment opinion. However, the Court denied her claim for additional temporary total disability benefits, finding she reached MMI on March 23, 2017, when Dr. Butler ceased active treatment.

Workers' CompensationNeurologic Impairment EvaluationTemporary Total Disability BenefitsMaximum Medical ImprovementSmall Fiber NeuropathyPain ManagementExpedited HearingMedical TreatmentImpairment RatingPenalty Program
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its compensation carrier against decisions made by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The decedent, a carpet layer, died from cardiac arrest during work, with an autopsy revealing underlying coronary atherosclerotic disease. His widow was awarded death benefits. The employer’s carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8), asserting a preexisting permanent physical impairment. However, the Board determined that there was no evidence that the decedent’s heart condition hindered his job potential before his death, thus releasing the Special Disability Fund from liability and holding the compensation carrier responsible. The employer's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied by the Board, leading to these appeals. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that the Board rationally found no proof that the decedent's heart disease impaired his job potential, a necessary condition for reimbursement under WCL § 15 (8) (d).

Special Disability FundPreexisting Permanent ImpairmentCardiac ArrestCoronary Atherosclerotic DiseaseDeath Benefits ClaimEmployer ReimbursementCarrier LiabilityBoard Decision ReviewAppellate AffirmationMedical Evidence Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case concerns the reconsideration of workers' compensation benefits for Robert Lazar, who sustained a shoulder injury while working for J.W. Aluminum. After an initial settlement for 12.4% permanent partial disability, Mr. Lazar sought reconsideration upon being laid off. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the chancery court's decision to award additional permanent partial disability benefits based on an extrapolated 8.27% medical impairment rating from the original settlement, rather than relying on subsequent independent medical evaluations. The court concluded that new impairment ratings obtained after the initial settlement are inconsistent with statutory requirements for reconsideration, and the award of 38% permanent partial disability was not excessive given Mr. Lazar's vocational limitations.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityMedical Impairment RatingReconsideration of BenefitsStatutory InterpretationSettlement AgreementExtrapolation of ImpairmentAppellate ReviewTennessee LawJudicial Review
References
9
Case No. 3-92-298-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1993

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involves an appeal by the Receiver for Citizen's National Assurance Company (appellant) against Johnny Ray Hatley (appellee) regarding workers' compensation benefits. Hatley was injured in a truck accident and received a third-party settlement, part of which went to the Receiver. The Receiver had signed a release of all claims and rights but argued that the settlement should be treated as an advance against future workers' compensation benefits under former article 8307, section 6a of the workers' compensation law, contending the release was not legally effective or lacked consideration. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Hatley, ruling that the release constituted a specific waiver by the Receiver of its statutory rights and was supported by valid consideration.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party LiabilitySettlement AgreementStatutory OffsetContractual ReleaseConsideration in ContractsSubrogation WaiverReimbursement RightsAppellate ReviewTravis County District Court
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The Special Disability Fund appealed decisions by the Workmen’s Compensation Board which imposed liability on the Fund for a claimant's injuries. The Board found that the employer, Country Developers, continued to employ the claimant, a carpenter, with knowledge of his pre-existing permanent physical impairment, triggering liability under subdivision 8 of section 15 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The claimant suffered a fracture of the nose and a hip dislocation in 1964, having a history of three ruptured disc surgeries and other conditions. The appeal centered on whether the employer had sufficient knowledge of the claimant’s permanent condition. Testimony from the employer’s foreman, Mr. Pahlck, indicated awareness of the claimant's back issues, including wearing a back brace and being favored by co-workers. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, reiterating that employer knowledge is a question of fact for the Board, and its findings, if supported by substantial evidence, will not be disturbed.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundEmployer LiabilityPre-existing Permanent ImpairmentEmployer KnowledgeSubstantial EvidencePermanent Partial DisabilityFracture of NoseHip DislocationRuptured Discs
References
3
Case No. 01-01-00812-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2003

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, acting for Reliance National Indemnity Company, appealed a summary judgment in favor of Martell Guillot. Reliance sought to claim statutory subrogation rights over proceeds from a 1995 lawsuit where Guillot was awarded $30,000 for a non-work-related automobile accident. Reliance argued that a portion of this award covered medical and income benefits it paid for Guillot's subsequent 1996 work-related injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the defendant in the 1995 lawsuit was not liable for Guillot's compensable injury. The court concluded that the jury's award in the 1995 lawsuit was exclusively for the 1994 accident, thereby preventing a double recovery, and denied Reliance's claim.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation RightsSummary Judgment AppealThird-Party LiabilityAutomobile AccidentCompensable InjuryDouble Recovery PreventionInsurance Guaranty AssociationAppellate ReviewTexas Labor Code
References
5
Case No. 03-05-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2006

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves an appeal from a workers' compensation decision concerning the employment status of two injured workers, Benjamin Brown and Clayton Mark Beck. The dispute centered on whether Jerry Gregory, Inc. or Hunter Trucking was their employer at the time of a trucking accident, which determines liability between National American Insurance Company (NAIC) and Texas Property and Casualty Guaranty Association (TPCIGA). The Workers' Compensation Commission initially found Gregory as the employer, making NAIC liable. However, the district court, after a jury trial under a 'modified de novo' standard, ruled that Hunter was the employer, thus making TPCIGA liable. TPCIGA appealed, arguing the dispute was a 'coverage' issue requiring substantial-evidence review, not modified de novo, and that the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the dispute was one 'regarding compensability' and thus correctly governed by modified de novo review.

Workers' CompensationEmployer LiabilityInsurance Coverage DisputeModified De Novo ReviewSubstantial Evidence ReviewBorrowed Servant DoctrineJudicial ReviewTexas Court of AppealsTravis CountyTrucking Accident
References
60
Showing 1-10 of 1,242 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