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

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Granite State Insurance Co.

Eddie Jackson, the plaintiff in a workers' compensation case, appealed a take-nothing verdict concerning the extent of his disability. The trial court admitted evidence of Jackson's sole medical witness's felony conviction for dispensing non-narcotic drugs, which was used for impeachment. The court of appeals initially affirmed, reasoning that although the conviction was inadmissible under prior law, the error was harmless as new rules of evidence (Tex.R.Evid. 609(a)) would make it admissible on retrial. However, Jackson argued that under Tex.R.Evid. 609(c), evidence of the conviction was inadmissible due to the witness's successful completion of probation. The Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the lower courts, agreeing with Jackson that Rule 609(c) clearly prohibits the admission of such evidence and that the error was not harmless, thus remanding the cause for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationEvidence AdmissibilityFelony ConvictionWitness ImpeachmentRules of EvidenceProbation CompletionAppellate ReviewReversalRemandMedical Witness
References
2
Case No. No. 38
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2019

The People v. John Giuca

John Giuca was convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and second-degree criminal weapon possession. His appeal, based on a CPL 440.10 motion, alleged Brady violations and prosecutorial misconduct concerning a jailhouse informant (JA). Giuca claimed the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material related to JA's pending burglary case, drug treatment violations, and the prosecutor's involvement in JA's court appearances. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court's denial of Giuca's motion. The Court found no reasonable possibility that the undisclosed evidence would have altered the verdict, citing extensive impeachment material already available and strong evidence of guilt.

Murder convictionBrady violationImpeachment evidenceJailhouse informantProsecutorial misconductDue processCriminal procedureCPL 440.10 motionMaterialityTacit agreement
References
33
Case No. 03-98-00707-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2000

Richard Martinez and Rachel Perez v. Melanie Vela, Individually and as Next Friend of Tiffany Michelle Cortez and Jessica Kaye Riojas, Minors

Appellants Richard Martinez and Rachel Perez challenged a trial court's judgment affirming jury awards for personal injuries to Melanie Vela and her daughters, Tiffany Michelle Cortez and Jessica Kaye Riojas, resulting from a car accident caused by Martinez. The appellants raised issues concerning the sufficiency of evidence for causation and medical expenses, the trial court's refusal to allow impeachment of Vela regarding Medicaid benefits, and the exclusion of Vela's mental health history. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the evidence legally and factually sufficient for the jury's damage awards. The court also upheld the trial court's discretionary rulings, applying the collateral source rule to exclude Medicaid benefits for impeachment and finding Vela's prior mental condition irrelevant to her mental anguish claim as presented.

Car accidentNegligenceNegligent entrustmentPersonal injuryDamagesExemplary damagesSufficiency of evidenceCausationMedical expensesCollateral source rule
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apresa v. Montfort Insurance Co.

Justice Larsen dissents, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff the opportunity to reopen evidence for a "simple, technical point essential to his case." The dissent highlights the second prong of the standard for reopening evidence under Tex.R.Civ.P. 270, emphasizing that discretion should be liberally exercised to fully develop a case in the interest of justice. Justice Larsen applies the four factors from Hill v. Melton: decisiveness, no undue delay, prevention of injustice, and diligence. The dissent concludes that the proffered testimony was decisive, its reception would not cause undue delay, and refusing it resulted in injustice, particularly in a workers' compensation case where laws should be liberally construed. The dissent also argues that the majority misapplies the diligence requirement, which should apply after a party rests and closes its case, not during the case-in-chief, especially when evidence had not yet been closed.

Appellate ProcedureReopening EvidenceTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionInterest of JusticeDiligence RequirementWorkers' Compensation LawTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureDissenting OpinionManifest Injustice
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lomascolo v. OTTO OLDSMOBILE-CADILLAC. INC.

This case involves a defendant's motion for a protective order to preclude the plaintiff from using two documents at trial, alleging they were not disclosed previously. The plaintiff, who alleges sexual harassment and a hostile work environment under Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law, argued that the documents were solely for impeachment purposes and thus excluded from mandatory disclosure. The court analyzed whether the documents had a dual purpose (impeachment and substantive evidence) and reviewed circuit precedents, ultimately declining to completely preclude their use. Instead, the court applied judicial estoppel, ruling that the documents, which the plaintiff claimed were for impeachment to avoid sanctions, could only be used for impeachment purposes at trial.

Discovery DisputeProtective Order MotionEvidence PreclusionImpeachment UseSubstantive EvidenceRule 26(a) DisclosureRule 37(c)(1) SanctionsJudicial EstoppelSexual Harassment ClaimHostile Work Environment
References
10
Case No. ADJ3156337 (FRE 0209931) ADJ4199467 (FRE 0209932)
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

FRANK FLORES vs. NICKEL'S PAYLESS STORES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for a 1999 right foot and ankle injury, specifically addressing the defendant's claims of error in permanent disability calculation without apportionment and the exclusion of medical evidence. The Board intends to admit the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports into evidence, which the WCJ had previously excluded. This decision will allow the Board to review all relevant medical evidence before making a final determination on apportionment and the applicant's claimed injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and OrderMinutes of Hearing
References
0
Case No. ADJ8518632
Regular
May 09, 2017

HORACIO MONTOYA vs. CBC FRAMING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, A B GALLAGHER BASSETT

The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a prior WCJ order compelling a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Removal was granted because the WCJ's order was based on a medical report that had not been formally admitted into evidence, preventing meaningful review. The Board will now admit the defendant's medical report into evidence for the limited purpose of determining the Petition for Removal. This action is an extraordinary remedy due to the prejudice caused by relying on unadmitted evidence.

RemovalFunctional Capacity EvaluationIndustrial InjuryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdmitted EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluationExhibit AAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Removal
References
4
Case No. WR-82,828-01
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2015

Anderson, Rodney Young

Rodney Anderson, the applicant, files preliminary protective objections to the Trial Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in a habeas corpus proceeding. Anderson contends that his due process rights were violated due to the State's suppression of favorable and material evidence under Brady v. Maryland. He objects to the Trial Court's conclusions regarding: 1) exculpatory witness statements from Paras and Brummet that would have shown officers were not identifiable as law enforcement during his arrest, crucial for the aggravated assault charge; 2) the undisclosed contingency fee agreement and true nature of the deal with confidential informant Jeffery Harmon, which could impeach Harmon's testimony; and 3) the extent of misconduct and significant role of crime scene investigator Caryn McAnarney in collecting evidence, impacting the chain of custody and integrity of the drug evidence. Anderson seeks relief, arguing that the suppressed evidence undermines confidence in the jury's verdict and warrants reconsideration.

Habeas CorpusBrady ViolationSuppressed EvidenceDue ProcessExculpatory EvidenceImpeachment EvidenceConfidential InformantContingency FeePolice MisconductChain of Custody
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 15,095 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