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

Samuel Campos v. Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association for Reliance National Indemnity Company, an Impaired Carrier

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deshotel v. Berryhill

This case reviews an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision regarding a plaintiff's Social Security disability benefits claim. The ALJ had determined that the plaintiff suffered from severe impairments, including migraine headaches, anxiety, depression, hand numbness, and fibromyalgia, and had the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work. However, the Court found that the ALJ erred by assessing the impact of the plaintiff's depression and anxiety on her RFC without the benefit of medical opinion evidence, thus rendering the administrative record incomplete. Despite the Commissioner's argument that the impairments were minor, the Court emphasized that the ALJ's own finding of "severe" impairments necessitated further development of the record, including obtaining medical opinions. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denied the Commissioner's cross-motion, reversed the Commissioner's decision, and remanded the case for additional administrative proceedings to gather the necessary medical opinion evidence concerning the plaintiff's mental limitations.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityMedical Opinion EvidenceMental ImpairmentsDepressionAnxietyRemandSubstantial Evidence
References
12
Case No. 12 Civ. 6451(PAC)(SN)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2014

Miller v. Colvin

Plaintiff Terrie A. Miller sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The plaintiff alleged disability due to various impairments including heart problems, depression, bipolar disorder, panic attacks, scoliosis, and asthma. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John P. Costello found that while Plaintiff had several severe impairments, they did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined Plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity (RFC) to perform light work with specific limitations, such as performing simple tasks only, avoiding heavy machinery and respiratory irritants, and working primarily alone. Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ concluded Plaintiff could perform jobs like photocopy machine operator or collator operator. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with legal standards, thus denying Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing the complaint with prejudice.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law Judge DecisionResidual Functional CapacityMental Health ImpairmentPhysical ImpairmentChronic PainCardiac ArrhythmiaScoliosis
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. 03-06-00404-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2007

Johnnie M. Charles v. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, on Behalf of Phico Insurance Company, an Impaired Carrier

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. 12 Civ. 8382 (WHP) (SN)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2014

Ryan v. Astrue

Plaintiff Vincent Ryan sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying his application for disability insurance benefits, alleging severe knee and spinal impairments. The court identified several errors in the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) evaluation, including an inadequate explanation for not finding a listed impairment, improper weighing of a treating physician's opinion, and a flawed assessment of the plaintiff's credibility regarding his pain. The court found that the ALJ failed to provide "good reasons" for discrediting medical evidence and misrepresented aspects of the plaintiff's medical history. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings.

Disability Insurance BenefitsSocial Security ActResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleCredibility AssessmentLumbar Spine ImpairmentCervical Spine ImpairmentKnee InjuriesALJ ErrorsRemand
References
75
Case No. Dkt. No. 1
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2012

Hamilton v. Colvin

Plaintiff William Hamilton applied for Social Security disability benefits, which were denied by the Commissioner. Hamilton sought judicial review of this decision in federal court. Magistrate Judge Bianchini issued a Report and Recommendation, suggesting the court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the case for further proceedings due to errors in evaluating severe impairments, credibility, and the use of Medical-Vocational Guidelines. Senior District Judge Scullin accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, granting Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denying the Defendant's, and reversing the Commissioner's denial of benefits. The case was remanded for reconsideration of Plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome, other alleged severe impairments, and the credibility determination.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActJudicial reviewAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeResidual Functional CapacityCredibility determinationVocational expertRemand
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stewart v. Apfel

The case involves a plaintiff's appeal of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of Social Security Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income benefits. The plaintiff claimed disability due to musculoskeletal impairment, personality disorder, and borderline intelligence. After several denials by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and the Appeals Council, the plaintiff sought judicial review. The court assessed whether the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence, applying the five-step disability determination process. It concluded that the ALJ's findings, which included that the plaintiff's impairments were not as severe as alleged and that the plaintiff could perform other work identified by a Vocational Expert, were indeed supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of disability benefits.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeALJ DecisionAppeals CouncilSubstantial Evidence ReviewMusculoskeletal ImpairmentPersonality DisorderBorderline IntelligenceVocational Expert TestimonyResidual Functional Capacity
References
12
Case No. 03-08-00483-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2010

Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association for Reliance National Insurance Company, an Impaired Company v. Doris J. Toberny

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Michele Laverne Brooks sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of her disability benefits claim under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings. Brooks alleged disability due to various conditions including high blood pressure, Hepatitis C, arthritis, diabetes, renal disease, and scoliosis, which she claimed severely limited her ability to work. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied her claim, finding that while she had severe impairments, they did not meet a listed impairment, and she retained the residual functional capacity to perform sedentary work. The ALJ gave limited weight to Brooks's testimony, citing inconsistencies with medical records and her prior claims for unemployment benefits. The Magistrate Judge granted the Commissioner's motion, affirming the ALJ's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and based on correct legal standards, particularly regarding the evaluation of Brooks's credibility and the medical opinions.

Social Security DisabilityJudicial ReviewBenefits DenialAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingsResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkMedical OpinionsTreating Physician RuleConsultative Examination
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 3,981 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