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

Johnson v. American General Insurance Co.

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed a workmen's compensation suit concerning a "fatal variance" between a claim presented to the Industrial Accident Board and that filed in court. The worker, Wilbur Johnson, initially claimed an accidental injury but later pursued compensation for silicosis, an occupational disease. The Court of Civil Appeals found a fatal variance, ruling against Johnson. However, the Supreme Court reversed this, determining that the information provided to the Board, including the employer's report and Johnson's description of his injury, was sufficient to encompass an occupational disease claim, even if the wrong form was used. Consequently, the Supreme Court found no fatal variance and remanded the case to the Court of Civil Appeals for consideration of other unaddressed points.

Workmen's Compensation LawOccupational Disease ClaimSilicosis DiagnosisFatal Variance DoctrineIndustrial Accident Board JurisdictionClaim SufficiencyPleading RequirementsTrial De Novo ScopeAppellate RemandStatutory Definition of Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Commercial Standard Insurance Co.

This worker's compensation case addresses whether a fatal variance existed between a claim filed with the Industrial Accident Board and the claim presented in District Court. The appellant initially filed a claim for an eye injury, which was later expanded by his attorney through a 'Claimant’s Narrative Summary' to include a general injury involving a psychiatric problem due to fear of blindness. The trial court sustained the insurance carrier's plea in abatement, citing a fatal variance. However, the appellate court determined that the narrative summary served as a proper enlargement of the original claim, not a variance, thereby affirming the court's jurisdiction. Citing legal precedents that allow amendments to claims before the Board's final disposition, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Worker's CompensationPlea in AbatementFatal VarianceIndustrial Accident BoardClaim EnlargementGeneral InjurySpecific LossPsychiatric InjuryJurisdictionAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Treybig v. Home Indemnity Co.

William C. Treybig, III, sought workers' compensation benefits for a right hip injury. His claim to the Industrial Accident Board (IAB) cited a May 26, 1978, injury as 'hurt hip.' The IAB denied the claim, finding no compensable injury on that date. In district court, Treybig recharacterized his injury as an occupational disease resulting from repetitive activities, leading to aseptic necrosis. Home Indemnity Company, a carrier, argued a fatal variance between the IAB claim and the court petition, and moved for summary judgment. The appellate court found the IAB claim insufficient to investigate an occupational disease, constituting a fatal variance. Consequently, it reversed the trial court's denial of Home Indemnity's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentPlea to JurisdictionFatal VarianceOccupational DiseaseAccidental InjuryIndustrial Accident BoardTexas LawHip InjuryAseptic Necrosis
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bland v. Gellman

A claimant had two workers' compensation claims, one managed by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases and the other by Travelers Insurance Company, with liability equally apportioned. The claimant's treating physician requested a variance for aquatic therapy, which both carriers denied. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge approved the treatment, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, asserting that the variance request form (MG-2) was not properly served on the Board and that the review request was untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the MG-2 form was timely filed with the Board, referencing both claim numbers, and that the request for review of the denial was also timely. The court concluded that the Board's determination lacked substantial evidence and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Variance RequestAquatic TherapyClaim DenialMG-2 FormTimely FilingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTravelers Insurance CompanySubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. 63647
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 1983

Sharpe v. State

Michael Lee Sharpe appealed a theft conviction, alleging judicial error in a jury comment, denial of impeachment via civil pleadings, a variance in ownership proof, and improper jury argument. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed the conviction, ruling that the objection to the jury comment was waived, civil pleadings are generally inadmissible hearsay for impeachment, and the statutory definition of "owner" was met. The court also found no error in the jury instruction on ownership or the prosecutor's closing argument. A dissenting opinion argued that impeachment evidence was improperly excluded and that a fatal variance existed in the proof of ownership.

theftcriminal appealjury commentimpeachmentcivil pleadingsownershipprior inconsistent statementwaiver of errorjury instructionTexas
References
13
Case No. 3041 0151
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of West v. Titan Express, Inc.

The claimant appealed a November 6, 2012 decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that denied a variance request for certain medical injections. While the appeal was pending, the Board issued an amended decision in April 2013, superseding the original but reaching the same ultimate conclusion. The Court determined that the Board acted within its statutory authority in issuing the amended decision, as the appeal had not yet been perfected and no prejudice resulted. However, because the amended decision superseded the initial one, the Court found the pending appeal moot. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical VarianceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionMootness DoctrineBoard JurisdictionAmended DecisionProcedural IssuesClaimant AppealTitan Express Inc.
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraioli's Hydro-Power, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection

The petitioner, a truck washing business, sought CPLR article 78 relief after its request for a variance to use New York City's water supply during a Stage II Drought Emergency was denied. The petitioner argued that it was denied a hearing and that the denial was arbitrary and capricious, citing economic hardship and previous variances. The court, presided by Judge David B. Saxe, rejected both arguments, finding that a formal hearing was not constitutionally required for a variance denial by an administrative agency. Furthermore, the court found the denial of the variance rational, stating that truck washing is not an essential use, alternatives exist, and granting a variance would contradict water conservation efforts and afford preferential treatment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Drought EmergencyWater ConservationVariance DenialCPLR Article 78Administrative DiscretionDue ProcessEconomic HardshipNon-Essential BusinessJudicial ReviewMunicipal Regulations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southern Underwriters v. West

S. O. West, an employee of Ben F. Smith, sustained injuries including a broken cervical vertebra, nerve damage, and hearing loss, claiming total and permanent disability under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The insurance carrier, Southern Underwriters, appealed a lump sum recovery judgment of $6,530 awarded to West. The core issue was a fatal variance between West’s initial detailed pleading of a 'sequestrum or dead bone' in his neck and the actual proof, which showed no such condition. Despite a trial amendment filed post-verdict, the appellate court found the evidence did not support the specific injury alleged, and the general submission of the injury issue to the jury was improper. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded.

Workmen's CompensationFatal VariancePleadingsInjury AllegationsTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum RecoveryAppellate ReviewRemandMedical ProofJury Instructions
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Northbrook National Insurance Co. v. Goodwin

The Northbrook National Insurance Company appealed a judgment awarding the plaintiff total and permanent disability and medical expenses under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The plaintiff, an employee of Mobile Concrete, Inc., suffered an angina attack on October 1, 1981, due to exertion while driving an employer's truck, leading to a coronary occlusion and bypass surgery. The defendant challenged the sufficiency of evidence for a compensable accidental injury, but the court found that the jury's conclusion regarding the causal connection between exertion and the angina attack was supported by medical expert testimony. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing a liberal construction of the Workers’ Compensation Act in favor of the claimant and rejecting the defendant's claim of a fatal variance between the initial claim and trial proof.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryAngina PectorisCoronary Artery DiseaseMedical CausationSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsTexas LawInsurance AppealEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. 529971
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2021

Matter of McLean v. Time Warner Cable, Inc.

Claimant Allen McLean sustained a work-related injury to his lower back in May 2013. His treating physician, Robert Tiso, requested a variance for medical marihuana to treat chronic pain, which the employer denied. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially upheld the denial, but the Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified this decision, granting the variance request. The employer appealed the Board's decision to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the Board's determination to grant the variance was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation LawChronic Pain TreatmentMedical Marihuana AuthorizationVariance Denial OverturnedAppellate Division Third DepartmentMedical NecessityEmployer LiabilityTreatment Guidelines DeviationLumbar Disc DegenerationRadiculopathy
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 447 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