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. 05-cv-0200
Regular Panel Decision

Virga v. Big Apple Construction & Restoration Inc.

The plaintiffs, multi-employer labor-management trust funds, sued defendants Big Apple Builders, Inc. and Kang Yeon Lee for delinquent fringe benefits, dues checkoffs, and PAC contributions, totaling over $800,000. The defendants defaulted by failing to respond to interrogatories and a notice to admit. Judge McMahon initially granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs but denied imputed audit costs. Upon reconsideration, the judge reversed the decision on audit costs, finding them appropriate under the collective bargaining agreement's "other legal or equitable relief" clause, despite a prior ruling in Santa Fe Construction.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentReconsideration MotionAudit CostsPersonal LiabilityMulti-employer planFringe Benefits
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1981

Claim of Junium v. A. L. Bazzini Co.

Claimant's decedent, an inside employee, was directed by a superior to attend an IRS audit during a severe blizzard. While shoveling snow to clear his driveway to attend the crucial audit, he suffered a fatal heart attack. The Workers' Compensation Board found that the death arose out of and in the course of employment, citing the essential nature of his attendance and the strenuous effort involved. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing the death did not arise from employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'special errand' exception to the general rule regarding risks of travel to and from work, and found the Board's finding supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSpecial ErrandHeart AttackBlizzardTravel RiskAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Builders Insurance Co. v. Molder

Calvin Molder suffered a work-related shoulder injury in 2001, leading to multiple surgeries and a workers' compensation claim against Texas Builders Insurance Company (TBI). Initially, Dr. Erwin assigned a 2% impairment rating (IR) and Maximum Medical Improvement (MMI) date of May 13, 2002. However, Molder's condition worsened, necessitating a third surgery and the appointment of a new designated doctor, Dr. Foster, who certified a 16% IR and MMI on March 17, 2003. TBI challenged Dr. Foster's appointment and findings, leading to judicial review. The appellate court affirmed Dr. Foster's proper appointment and Molder's MMI date but reversed the 16% IR, finding it improperly considered post-MMI surgery. The case was remanded for reassessment of Molder's impairment rating.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementShoulder InjurySurgical ComplicationsDesignated Doctor AppointmentJudicial ReviewSupplemental Income BenefitsTexas Labor CodeMedical Evaluation
References
18
Case No. 05-12-01718-CV, DC-11-10636
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2014

Patrick Hudson v. Southern Insurance Company

Patrick Hudson appealed a judgment in favor of Southern Insurance Company, a workers' compensation insurer, concerning a thumb injury sustained during employment. Hudson challenged the trial court's evidentiary rulings and its findings regarding his maximum medical improvement (MMI) date and impairment rating (IR). The core dispute revolved around the extent of his compensable injury, including anxiety, depression, and chronic pain, in addition to his thumb injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings and that the record supported the findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Hudson's MMI and IR. The court found Hudson waived objections to a doctor's qualifications by not raising them at the administrative level and that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the trial court's adopted MMI of February 3, 2009, and IR of 1%.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsFindings of FactConclusions of LawMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Impairment Rating (IR)Designated DoctorJudicial ReviewTexas Labor Code
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of I-Conscious R. (George S.)

This case involves an appeal concerning a Family Court order that determined a respondent father abused and neglected his daughter and derivatively abused and neglected his son. The appellate court affirmed the fact-finding order, concluding that the petitioner presented a preponderance of evidence, including medical findings of genital herpes in the child, indicative of sexual abuse. The court upheld the neglect finding due to the father's failure to secure timely medical care for his daughter's severe symptoms. Additionally, the respondent's arguments regarding the suggestiveness of interviews, the testimony of his expert witness, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were all rejected by the court. An appeal against a separate order of protection was dismissed due to abandonment.

Child AbuseChild NeglectSexual AbuseGenital HerpesMedical EvidenceFamily Court ProceedingsSufficiency of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2015

Matter of Ruth Joanna O.O. (Melissa O.)

Justice Gesmer dissents from the affirmation of a Family Court order finding Melissa O. neglected her child. The dissent argues that the Family Court lacked a basis for its neglect finding, as there was no evidence that the mother's conduct impaired or threatened her child's condition. Furthermore, it asserts that the findings regarding the mother's failure to take medication or engage in mental health services were unsupported by admissible evidence. Gesmer, J. emphasizes that proof of mental illness alone is insufficient for a neglect finding without a causal link to actual or potential harm to the child. The dissent concludes that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the mother's mental illness resulted in a failure to provide a minimum degree of care or that the child was harmed or at imminent risk of harm.

Child Protective ProceedingNeglect FindingParental Mental IllnessSufficiency of EvidenceImminent Risk of HarmMinimum Degree of CareFamily Court ActDissenting OpinionAdmissibility of EvidenceCausal Connection
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2009

In re Jessica L.

This case concerns an appeal by a father against a finding of neglect regarding his two children. The children resided with their mother, who had a history of drug use. The father, suspecting the mother was currently using drugs, anonymously contacted the Administration for Children's Services (ACS). Although the mother subsequently tested positive for cocaine, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's neglect finding against the father. The court determined that the father's actions, including his proactive call to ACS, met the minimum degree of care required and did not constitute neglect, thereby vacating the finding and dismissing the petition against him.

Family LawChild NeglectParental RightsAppellate ReviewFamily CourtSubstance AbuseDrug TestingACS InterventionMinimum Degree of CareReversal of Finding
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Financial Insurance Co. v. Ragsdale

This is an appeal in a workers' compensation case concerning an impairment rating. Appellee William Ragsdale, an employee of MR Drilling, suffered a fall at work in 2001 after a prior stroke. His treating physician assigned a 0% impairment rating (IR), while the designated doctor, Dr. Steven Ellsworth, determined a 67% whole person impairment but apportioned it to 10% attributable to the new accident. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel overturned a hearing officer's decision, ruling the IR was 67%. The employer's carrier appealed to the courts, challenging the 67% IR and the exclusion of doctors' testimonies. The trial court presented the jury with 0% or 67% IR options, and the jury found 67%. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the 67% IR and the attorney's fees awarded to Ragsdale, finding no abuse of discretion in the jury question or exclusion of evidence.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementDesignated DoctorTreating PhysicianJury VerdictAppellate ReviewAttorney's FeesTexas Labor CodeMedical Evidence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Office of Risk Mangement v. Linda Rodriguez

Linda Rodriguez, a former Texas Department of Human Services employee, sustained a compensable injury in 1998, reaching maximum medical improvement (MMI) in 2000. Her worker's compensation claim centered on a disputed impairment rating (IR), with designated doctor Howard Douglas assigning 5 percent and treating physician Terren Klein assigning 23 percent. Rodriguez appealed the Division's 5 percent IR determination to the district court. The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) filed a second plea to the jurisdiction, arguing no justiciable issue existed as only one valid IR was presented. The trial court overruled SORM's plea, and this appellate court affirmed that decision, finding a justiciable controversy regarding the validity of Dr. Klein's 23 percent IR.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementJurisdictionDe Novo ReviewTexas Labor CodeMedical EvidenceDesignated DoctorTreating PhysicianAdministrative Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 1995

P.A. Building Co. v. City of New York

The plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion and sought to sever a second cause of action, which was denied. Defendants, the City of New York and Kislak, cross-moved to dismiss the complaint and compel the plaintiff to submit to an audit, which was granted. The core of the dispute involved the City designating Kislak to audit lease expenses, which the plaintiff contested as an illegal contingency fee arrangement. The court ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the contract between the City and Kislak, finding no direct harm or third-party beneficiary status. Furthermore, the plaintiff's refusal to submit to the audit impaired the City's ability to protest overcharges, thereby relieving the City of its obligation for additional rent escalation payments. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, the order for an audit, and the dismissal of the tortious interference claim against Kislak.

Summary JudgmentContract DisputeAuditingAgency AgreementStanding (Law)Tortious InterferenceLease AgreementBreach of ContractContingency FeeDismissal of Complaint
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 20,946 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