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. 10-04-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2005

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. William Ira Mathison

William Ira Mathison was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel found he was not in the course and scope of his employment. A jury determined that Mathison was in the course and scope of his employment, a finding appealed by Pacific Employers Insurance Company. The appeal argued that the evidence supporting the jury's finding was legally and factually insufficient. The court, however, noted Mathison’s supervisor considered the trip to repair a work laptop to be in furtherance of the employer’s business. The court found that Mathison was impliedly directed by his employer, thus acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Worker's CompensationCourse of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyTexas Labor CodeSpecial Mission ExceptionEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 2-89-133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1990

McCoy v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

Margaret McCoy, an employee, sustained an injury on her employer's premises while attempting to pick up her paycheck before her scheduled shift. She had several alternative methods for receiving her pay. The trial court determined that McCoy was not acting within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the injury. On appeal, McCoy argued that the evidence established as a matter of law that her injury occurred within the course and scope of her employment. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that McCoy's actions were not in furtherance of her employer's business. A dissenting opinion argued that McCoy should have been considered within the course and scope of her employment as a matter of law.

Worker's CompensationCourse and Scope of EmploymentPaycheck CollectionPremises LiabilityEmployer AccommodationAppealAffirmationDissenting OpinionTexas LawSummary Judgment
References
5
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Beach

Jesse P. Beach was killed in an automobile accident while returning home from work, transporting three other members of his drilling crew. His wife and son sought workmen’s compensation from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. A jury rendered judgment for Beach’s wife and son, but the insurance carrier appealed. The core legal question was whether Beach’s fatal injuries were sustained in the course of his employment, particularly concerning the use of his personal vehicle for transport and the employer's compensation practices. The appellate court found that Beach's employment contract explicitly excluded payment for transportation time and the use of his vehicle, overturning the jury's verdict and ruling that he was not in the course of his employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentTravel TimeEmployment ContractCustom and UsageAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance ClaimDrilling Company
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1948

Texas Employers' Insurance v. Inge

This case involves a claim for workmen's compensation by the widow and children of T. G. Inge, a "roughneck" who died in an automobile accident. Inge was employed by P. W. Appleby, a drilling contractor, and was paid a mileage fee to transport himself and his fellow workers to and from a remote drilling site in Pecos County, Texas. The central legal question was whether Inge was acting in the course of his employment or as an independent contractor at the time of his fatal accident. Both the district court and the Court of Civil Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. This court affirmed the judgment, holding that the transportation arrangement was an essential and integral part of Inge's employment contract, thereby placing him within the course of his employment under the Workmen's Compensation Law, and rejecting the argument that he was an independent contractor for the transportation service.

Workmen's CompensationCourse of EmploymentIndependent ContractorTransportation AgreementFatal AccidentDrilling CrewMileage ReimbursementTexas LawAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Brumbaugh

The case is a workmen’s compensation appeal initiated by Maunie F. Brumbaugh et al. against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. The dependents sought death benefits for W. C. Brumbaugh, who died from injuries in an automobile collision while allegedly on a special mission for his employer, L. Coffee. The central issues on appeal included the admissibility of the deceased's hearsay statements as res gestae and the trial court's definition of 'injury sustained in the course of employment.' The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in admitting the testimony or in the jury instructions, thereby upholding the finding that Brumbaugh was in the course of his employment.

Workmen's CompensationAppellate LawRes GestaeHearsay EvidenceCourse of EmploymentSpecial Mission DoctrineAutomobile AccidentEmployee InjuryEmployer ResponsibilityTexas Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Casualty Co. v. Hutchinson

This is a workers' compensation death case where Mary Jane Hutchinson sought benefits for her son, George W. Hutchinson, who died in an automobile accident while allegedly in the course and scope of his employment with Ford Motor Credit Corporation. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, but Employers Casualty Company appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the "dual-purpose travel doctrine." The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the decedent was in the course of his employment and that the dual-purpose travel doctrine was not applicable to the fatal trip.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentDual-Purpose Travel DoctrineAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceStatutory InterpretationEmployer's Affairs
References
9
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Lee

This worker's compensation case concerns Franklin N. Lee, a carpenter employed by Sabine Consolidated, Inc., who sustained severe injuries on June 28, 1975. The injury occurred after his work shift, within his employer's designated parking area on the construction site, while he was attempting to clear a path for his car by moving a company compressor. The defendant, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, appealed a jury verdict that found Lee's injury occurred in the course of his employment, challenging the application of the 'access doctrine.' The 'access doctrine' posits that employment includes a reasonable margin of time and space for an employee to pass to and from work, extending to injuries sustained on premises owned or controlled by the employer or closely related thereto. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that there was sufficient factual evidence to support the jury's finding under the access doctrine.

Worker's CompensationAccess DoctrineCourse of EmploymentEmployer LiabilityPremises InjuryJury VerdictAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIngress EgressTexas Civil Statute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1939

Texas Employers Insurance v. Sparrow

Allen Sparrow, a longshoreman and employee of Southern Stevedoring & Contracting Company, was fatally stabbed by a fellow longshoreman on the city docks of Beaumont. This incident occurred near a public telephone provided by the Beaumont Maritime Association, which also housed longshoremen during a strike, but was not directly affiliated with Sparrow's employer. Sparrow's beneficiaries filed a compensation claim against Texas Employers Insurance Association. Initially, the trial court and Court of Civil Appeals ruled in favor of the beneficiaries. However, the Commission of Appeals reversed this decision, concluding that Sparrow's death did not occur within the course of his employment, as neither the lodging nor the telephone was furnished by his employer, nor was he required to remain on the docks.

Longshoreman InjuryOff-Duty ConductEmployment NexusCompensation ClaimAppellate ReversalTexas Supreme CourtMaritime LaborWorkplace EnvironmentIndependent Contractor DefenseCausation in Compensation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 15,264 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