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

Rubies v. Aqua Club, Inc.

Judge Read dissents from the majority's interpretation of 'permanent total disability' concerning acquired brain injuries under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Read argues for a narrower definition, requiring the inability to perform usual daily living activities, aligning with legislative intent for the 1996 amendment to section 11. This amendment aimed to strictly curtail third-party actions against employers by narrowly defining 'grave injuries.' The dissent stresses that the list of grave injuries is exhaustive, not illustrative, and should not be broadly interpreted. Therefore, the definition of 'permanent total disability' for an acquired brain injury should essentially require a vegetative state to protect employers as intended by the Legislature.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjuryAcquired Brain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionsDissenting OpinionJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a third-party defendant's (Yankee One Dollar Stores, Inc.) motions for summary judgment against a defendant (Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.). The plaintiff, Bush, was injured at work and sued Mechanicville, who then brought a third-party action against Yankee for indemnification. Yankee argued that plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that there was no written contractual indemnification agreement. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the 'grave injury' claim, finding sufficient evidence of permanent total disability due to a traumatic brain injury. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification, ruling that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 requires an *express written contract* of indemnification from the employer, which was not present between Yankee and Mechanicville.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryContractual IndemnificationBrain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityHoldover TenantExpress AgreementAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 2024-50-5540
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2025

Graves, Chad v. Southall Adventures, LLC

Chad Graves, an employee, appealed a decision concerning injuries from a workplace fall. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed an interlocutory appeal regarding his left knee and cervical spine injuries. The trial court had ordered benefits for the left knee but declined to compel treatment with an unauthorized physician for the cervical spine. The Appeals Board reversed the trial court's order for ongoing medical treatment of the employee's left knee injury and associated temporary disability benefits, finding Dr. Bowman's causation opinion insufficient. However, it affirmed the portion of the trial court's order compelling the employer to provide a new panel of physicians for the neck injury, citing the employee's unreasonable actions.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealMedical CausationLeft Knee InjuryCervical Spine InjuryTemporary Disability BenefitsUnauthorized Medical TreatmentPhysician PanelEmployee MisconductPre-existing Condition
References
7
Case No. No. 05-20-00835-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2022

G Force Framing LLC, Kerry Graves, Kerry Graves on Behalf of G Force Framing LLC, and Kerry Graves D/B/A G Force Framing v. MacSouth Forest Products, L.L.C. v. Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC, SC Switchyard, LLC, XL Specially Insurance Company and Travelers Surely and Casually Company

G Force Framing LLC (G Force) and Kerry Graves appealed the trial court's final judgment from Dallas County, Texas, which had dismissed G Force's claims and discharged its mechanic's liens. The trial court ruled based on G Force's prior tax forfeiture and alleged lack of capacity to sue. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that G Force was not a 'terminated entity' under the Texas Business Organizations Code because its tax forfeiture was eventually set aside, thus allowing it to pursue its claims. The appellate court also found the indemnity bonds filed by Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC were insufficient to discharge the mechanic's liens. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Graves's individual claims as they belonged solely to the corporation.

Tax ForfeitureCorporate ReinstatementCapacity to SueSummary JudgmentRule 91a Motion to DismissMechanic's LiensIndemnity BondsStatutory InterpretationTexas Business Organizations CodeTexas Tax Code
References
61
Case No. 10-11-00239-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2012

Baker's Campground, Inc., Kelli Graves, and Kourtnie Graves v. Anthony L. McCalla and Cheryl A. McCalla

Baker’s Campground Inc., Kelli Graves, and Kourtnie Graves (Appellants) filed suit against Anthony and Cheryl McCalla (Appellees) alleging cloud on title and slander on title after the McCallas recorded a “Notice of Settlement Agreement.” The trial court granted the McCallas' partial motion for summary judgment and later awarded them specific performance of the settlement agreement, damages, and attorney fees. On appeal, the Graves argued the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and erred in granting summary judgment. The Tenth Court of Appeals found the trial court had jurisdiction but determined that the 2003 Release and Settlement Agreement, which included handwritten provisions by Walt Baker, was ambiguous. As the interpretation of an ambiguous contract is a fact issue, the appellate court concluded that the partial summary judgment was improperly granted. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Property disputeCloud on titleSlander on titleSettlement agreementSummary judgmentContract ambiguityAppellate reviewJurisdictionTexas lawReal estate
References
8
Case No. 10-93-224-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1994

Subsequent Injury Fund of the State of Texas (Formerly the Second Injury Fund) v. Larry Milligan

The Subsequent Injury Fund appeals a judgment awarding Larry Milligan lifetime benefits for injuries sustained at work. Milligan suffered two ankle injuries in 1987 and a third in 1989, leading to the total loss of use of both feet. He sued the Fund for lifetime benefits after settling with the workers' compensation carrier. The jury found permanent, total loss of use of both feet. The Fund challenged its statutory liability for lifetime benefits and the court's refusal to submit a jury question on total and permanent incapacity. The appellate court affirmed, finding the first issue unpreserved and the second resolved by a statutory conclusive presumption of total and permanent incapacity for the loss of both feet.

Workers' Compensation LawSubsequent Injury FundLifetime BenefitsTotal Permanent IncapacityAnkle InjuriesStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewJury InstructionsConclusive PresumptionOccupational Injuries
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2011

Tzic v. Kasampas

The injured plaintiff fell 15 feet from a sidewalk shed opening at a construction site due to inadequate safety devices. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the owners, Christina Serafis Kasampas and Nicholas Serafis, and determined the plaintiff suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The court denied the owners' cross-motion for summary judgment on indemnification and partially denied MSS Construction Corp.'s cross-motion to dismiss claims. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this order, finding the statutory violation was a proximate cause of the injuries and rejecting arguments of contributory negligence or the owners' lack of control over safety.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightSidewalk ShedLabor Law 240(1)Strict LiabilityGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentIndemnification ClaimsProximate Cause
References
8
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Graves

This workmen's compensation case involves Rufus Graves, Jr.'s claim against Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for incapacity resulting from two separate back injuries in 1973 and 1975. The central legal question was whether Graves could recover total and permanent incapacity benefits for each injury, despite both contributing to a single period of incapacity, under the 1971 amendment to Texas Workmen's Compensation Act § 12c. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the 1971 amendment prevents reduction for prior compensable general injuries, effectively allowing multiple recoveries for a single period of incapacity. The court also addressed challenges to the sufficiency of evidence regarding the 1973 injury's contributing cause and objections to jury arguments and medical testimony.

Workmen's Compensation ActBack InjuryPermanent IncapacityDouble RecoveryStatutory InterpretationSection 12cProducing CauseMedical TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceJury Argument
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Second Injury Fund

Walter Johnson, who had previously lost vision in his right eye, suffered an injury at work resulting in the loss of vision in his left eye, leaving him totally and permanently disabled. He received benefits from Texas Employer’s Insurance Association and the Second Injury Fund. Johnson and his wife then sued Texas Industries, Inc. for negligence. Both TEIA and the Second Injury Fund intervened, seeking subrogation rights. The trial court denied the Second Injury Fund's claim to subrogation, but the court of appeals reversed. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed whether the Second Injury Fund is subrogated to Walter Johnson's rights in his personal injury suit. The Court concluded that subrogation is a legislative creation and the statute funding the Second Injury Fund explicitly enumerates funding methods without including subrogation. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's decision, denying subrogation for the Second Injury Fund.

SubrogationSecond Injury FundWorkers' CompensationStatutory InterpretationExpressio Unius Est Exclusio AlteriusTotal DisabilityPersonal InjuryTexas Supreme CourtFunding MechanismsLegislative Intent
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 17,880 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