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

Charter Oak Fire Insurance Co. v. Taylor

The appellate court reversed a trial court's judgment in a workers' compensation case, ruling that the trial court erred by refusing to provide a 'sole cause' instruction to the jury. The appellant argued that the appellee's pre-existing spinal stenosis, not an industrial injury, was the sole cause of disability. The court clarified that while 'sole cause' is an inferential rebuttal issue and not submitted as a special issue, an appropriate instruction must be given if supported by pleadings and evidence. Finding that the issue was raised, the appellate court concluded the omission was an abuse of discretion and harmful error, remanding the case for a new trial.

Sole Cause InstructionInferential Rebuttal IssuesTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionPre-existing ConditionSpinal StenosisJury InstructionsRemand for New TrialProducing CauseMedical Testimony
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diamond Offshore Management Company v. Lela Guidry

Justice Gaultney dissents, arguing that "course and scope" and "in the service of the vessel" constitute an essential element of the plaintiff's burden of proof, not merely an inferential rebuttal issue. He contends that the trial court erred by not submitting this controlling fact issue, concerning whether Guidry was within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident, to the jury despite the defendant's objection. Additionally, Gaultney asserts that evidence regarding Guidry's intoxication was improperly excluded, as it was relevant to both Guidry's negligence and his return to the vessel's service. Consequently, Justice Gaultney believes the case should be remanded for a new trial due to the defective jury instruction.

Jury InstructionCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentService of VesselPlaintiff's BurdenInferential RebuttalFact IssueIntoxication EvidenceNegligenceRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fusco v. Birdville Independent School District

Albert J. Fusco sued his employer, Bird-ville Independent School District, a self-insurer, for worker's compensation benefits after allegedly suffering a compensable hernia. The jury found an injury but failed to find that the hernia appeared suddenly and immediately following the injury, leading to a judgment for the defendant. Fusco appealed, arguing that certain special issues were inferential rebuttal issues and should not have been submitted, and that the hernia statute should not apply since no operation was tendered. The court disagreed, holding that the statutory requirements for hernia claims under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306, § 12b must be met. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationHernia ClaimJury InstructionsStatutory InterpretationTex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306 § 12bInferential Rebuttal IssuesSelf-InsurerEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Mandlbauer

Mike Mandlbauer, injured in a forklift accident in 1992, had his claim disputed by the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund after later medical findings contradicted an earlier MRI. A district court jury found Mandlbauer's current symptoms and disability were not a result of the 1992 injury. On appeal, Mandlbauer complained about the trial court's refusal to include a "sole cause" inferential rebuttal instruction. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court of Texas ruled that Mandlbauer, as the plaintiff, lacked standing to complain about the omission of a defense-oriented "sole cause" instruction. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for consideration of Mandlbauer's other issues.

Jury InstructionsSole CauseInferential RebuttalStandingAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationProducing CauseTexas LawTrial Court ErrorHarmful Error
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Select Insurance Co. v. Boucher

Select Insurance Co. appealed a jury verdict awarding Thomas Earl Boucher workmen's compensation for six and three-fourths years of total incapacity. The defendant contended that the plaintiff suffered only partial disability and requested related issues and instructions, which the trial court refused. The appellate court affirmed this refusal, noting that partial incapacity issues in this context were inferential rebuttal issues, and the requested definition was inadequate. Furthermore, the court found Dr. Belz's psychiatric testimony, based on both personal examination and hearsay, admissible as he was a treating physician. The appellate court concluded that the jury's finding of total incapacity was supported by sufficient evidence, particularly the medical testimony regarding the plaintiff's mental condition following his injury.

Workmen's Compensation AppealTotal IncapacityPartial Incapacity DefenseRule 277 T.R.C.P.Inferential Rebuttal IssuesExpert Witness TestimonyHearsay EvidencePsychiatric EvaluationMental DisabilityEarning Capacity Reduction
References
12
Case No. 07-99-0105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2000

James R. Walzier v. Newton, A.L., Dba Newton Trucking Company

James R. Walzier appealed a judgment denying him recovery against his employer, A.L. Newton d/b/a A.L. Newton Trucking Company, following a vehicle accident. Walzier alleged defective brakes, while Newton presented evidence suggesting Walzier's sole proximate cause. Walzier objected, arguing the evidence violated Texas Labor Code § 406.033 and that sole proximate cause was an unpleaded affirmative defense under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 94. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that § 406.033 does not prohibit the defense of sole proximate cause and that sole proximate cause is an inferential rebuttal issue, not an affirmative defense, thus not subject to Rule 94's pleading requirement.

Workers' CompensationSole Proximate CauseAffirmative DefenseEvidentiary ObjectionAdmissibility of EvidenceEmployee NegligenceEmployer LiabilityTexas LawAppellate ReviewTrial Court Error
References
6
Case No. ADJ1078163, ADJ3341185
Significant
Sep 03, 2009

Applicant vs. Workers' Compensation Appeals Board

The court holds that a permanent disability rating under the 2005 Schedule is rebuttable, but any rebuttal evidence concerning Whole Person Impairment (WPI) must be founded within the four corners of the AMA Guides.

AMA GuidesPermanent Disability RatingRebuttablePrima Facie EvidenceWhole Person ImpairmentScheduleLabor Code Section 4660SB 899En Banc DecisionWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
73
Case No. ADJ1078163 (BAK 0145426), ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
En Banc
Feb 03, 2009

MARIO ALMARAZ, JOYCE GUZMAN vs. ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

In a consolidated en banc decision, the Appeals Board holds that the AMA Guides portion of the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities is rebuttable and remands two separate cases to their respective WCJs to determine if the standards for rebuttal have been met.

AMA Guides2005 Schedulerebuttablepermanent disabilityinequitable awarddisproportionate awardfair and accurate measuremedical opinionsadministrative law judgeWCJ
References
61
Case No. ADJ1177048
Significant
Sep 03, 2009

Wanda Ogilvie, Applicant vs. City and County of San Francisco, Permissibly Self-Insured

This en banc decision clarifies that a permanent disability rating established by the 2005 Schedule is rebuttable, the burden of rebuttal rests with the party disputing the rating, and a rating may be rebutted by challenging one of its components, such as the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor.

Permanent DisabilityDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECSchedulePrima Facie EvidenceRebuttableBurden of ProofRAND DataAMA GuidesOccupational Group
References
54
Case No. ADJ1177048
En Banc
Sep 03, 2009

WANDA OGILVIE vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

This en banc decision clarifies that a permanent disability rating established by the Schedule is rebuttable, the burden of which rests with the disputing party. It affirms that a primary method of rebuttal is to challenge a component element, such as the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor, by providing an individualized factor consistent with statutory requirements.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFEC2005 ScheduleRebuttablePrima Facie EvidencePermanent Disability RatingLabor Code section 4660RAND dataIndividualized Adjustment FactorWhole Person Impairment
References
51
Showing 1-10 of 162 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