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

Claim of Smith v. LSI Lighting Services

A machine operator, referred to as claimant, sustained a head injury and became totally disabled after falling from a platform at work. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for benefits, accepting the employer's defense that the injury resulted solely from intoxication. Evidence included a 0.218% blood alcohol content and medical records indicating alcohol abuse. The Board concluded that claimant's fall was due to intoxication, thereby overcoming the statutory presumption that the injury was not solely due to intoxication. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the finding that intoxication was the sole cause of the claimant's injury.

Workers' Compensation AppealIntoxication DefenseBlood Alcohol ContentStatutory Presumption RebuttalSole Cause of InjuryAppellate Review StandardSubstantial EvidenceMedical Records EvidenceAlcoholism DiagnosisWorkplace Fall
References
7
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. 13-17-00501-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2019

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Herminio Pasillas

The Texas Department of Public Safety (Department) appealed a county court's judgment that reversed the suspension of Herminio Pasillas's driver's license. Pasillas was arrested for driving while intoxicated (DWI) after being stopped for an inoperable taillamp, exhibiting signs of intoxication, and failing field sobriety tests, with a subsequent breath test showing an alcohol concentration of 0.091. An administrative law judge (ALJ) initially suspended Pasillas's license, finding sufficient evidence for the stop, arrest, and intoxication, but the county court reversed this decision. On appeal, the Thirteenth District Court of Appeals independently reviewed the ALJ's decision under a substantial evidence standard. The appellate court held that substantial evidence supported the ALJ's findings and rejected Pasillas's arguments regarding the untrustworthiness of the officer's sworn report and unpreserved issues from the ALR hearing. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the county court's judgment and reinstated the suspension of Pasillas's driver's license.

Driver's License SuspensionDWIAdministrative License Revocation (ALR)Substantial Evidence ReviewProbable CauseReasonable SuspicionAdmissibility of EvidenceOfficer's Sworn ReportBreath TestTraffic Violation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York City Transit Authority

The petitioner, a 15-year employee of the New York City Transit Authority named Johnson, was demoted from structure supervisor and foreman to structure maintainer after a disciplinary hearing. This demotion followed a blood alcohol test, which showed .7 milligrams of alcohol per cubic centimeter in his blood, taken after he was involved as a passenger in a minor traffic accident. The Transit Authority's determination was based on an internal, uncodified policy stating that a .5 blood alcohol reading automatically proved intoxication, despite no evidence of Johnson's actual intoxication or poor performance. Johnson testified the alcohol was from prescription cough medicine and two scotches consumed over 21 hours prior. The court, reviewing the determination under CPLR article 78, annulled the demotion, ruling that the finding of unfitness was not supported by substantial evidence, especially considering New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1195 (2)(b) deems a .7 reading prima facie evidence of *not* being intoxicated. The court ordered Johnson restored to his supervisory position with full back pay.

Disciplinary ActionDemotionBlood Alcohol TestUnfitness for DutyCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewIntoxication PolicyBack PayJudicial AnnulmentPrescription Medication
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. State Office of Risk Management

Raul Sanchez was paralyzed and later died following a single-car accident while returning from work training. His widow, Twilah Sanchez, filed a workers' compensation claim, which the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) denied, asserting Raul was intoxicated. SORM secured a no-evidence summary judgment, arguing Sanchez lacked proof to show Raul was not intoxicated. Sanchez appealed, presenting lay and expert testimony to challenge the intoxication finding and the reliability of SORM's expert. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding Sanchez failed to provide evidence demonstrating Raul's blood alcohol content was below the legal intoxication limit of 0.08.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseSummary JudgmentRetrograde ExtrapolationBlood Alcohol ContentExpert TestimonyLay Witness TestimonyAppellate ReviewTexas LawEmployment Accident
References
9
Case No. ADJ10450656
Regular
Sep 27, 2017

ALEX RONALD PADILLA vs. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant's injury was not barred by the defense of intoxication. While drug tests showed the applicant tested positive for controlled substances, there was insufficient medical or expert evidence to prove intoxication or impairment at the time of the injury. The WCJ's credibility determinations, particularly regarding the applicant's testimony about his intoxication level and the employer's failure to present conclusive evidence, were given great weight.

ADJ10450656Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ credibility determinationintoxication defenseaffirmative defenseburden of proofcontrolled substancesdrug screen reportssurveillance film
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

March v. Victoria Lloyds Insurance Co.

Anthony E. March, a truck driver, died in a crash. His employer's insurer, Victoria Lloyds Insurance Company, denied workers' compensation death benefits, alleging March was intoxicated, thus not in the course of employment. The jury sided with the insurer. The Marches appealed, challenging the admissibility of blood alcohol evidence, the burden of proof, and jury instructions regarding intoxication and causation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of intoxication and upholding the court's evidentiary and instructional rulings.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseBlood Alcohol ContentBusiness Records ExceptionEvidence AdmissibilityJury InstructionBurden of ProofCausationAppellate ReviewTrucking Accident
References
19
Case No. 01-07-00268-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2008

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Richard Havard

This appeal arose from a worker's compensation case where Texas Mutual Insurance Company disputed the compensability of Richard Havard's injuries, alleging intoxication. The trial court, affirming an appeals panel decision, found Havard was not intoxicated at the time of injury, making his claim compensable. Texas Mutual appealed, challenging the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's refusal to impose sanctions for altered medical records. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the finding that Havard rebutted the presumption of intoxication and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding sanctions.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseDrug TestingCocaine MetaboliteEvidentiary SufficiencyRebuttable PresumptionJudicial ReviewTrial Court FindingsDiscovery SanctionsMedical Record Alteration
References
14
Case No. 14-20-00262-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Bertoldo Balderas, as Next Friend of Rigoverto Balderas v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Bertoldo Balderas, as next friend of Rigoverto Balderas, appealed a trial court's judgment affirming an administrative decision that denied workers' compensation benefits. Rigoverto Balderas sustained injuries at work and was found to be intoxicated, precluding compensation under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The appellant challenged the trial court's rulings regarding the employer's identity, insurance coverage, the sufficiency of intoxication evidence based on blood alcohol tests, and alleged errors in the jury charge and admissibility of medical records. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals reviewed the issues and ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding of intoxication and rejected arguments regarding evidentiary and procedural errors.

Intoxication DefenseEmployer IdentificationSummary Judgment AppealJudicial Review of Administrative DecisionsBlood Alcohol ConcentrationRetrograde Extrapolation ReliabilityAdmissibility of EvidenceCorporate StructureInsurance Policy CoverageConstitutional Rights
References
39
Case No. Docket No.: 2019-06-1836; State File No.: 93809-2019
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2020

Dela Rosa, Juvenal v. Mauricio Lopez Coronado

Juvenal De La Rosa, a construction framer, suffered multiple fractures after falling from a ladder while working for Mauricio Lopez Coronado. The employer raised an intoxication defense, citing Mr. De La Rosa's admitted and witnessed alcohol consumption throughout the workday. The Court found sufficient circumstantial evidence of intoxication, but critically, it determined that the employer failed to prove intoxication was the proximate cause of the fall, as Mr. De La Rosa attributed the accident to an obstructed ladder. Consequently, the Court granted Mr. De La Rosa medical benefits for his emergency care and surgery. However, his request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to a lack of evidence regarding his compensation rate and the extent or duration of his disability.

Intoxication defenseLadder fallConstruction accidentMedical benefitsTemporary disabilityProximate causeCircumstantial evidenceWorkers' compensationEmployer liabilityAlcohol consumption
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 15,176 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