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

Munoz v. Berne Group, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by employee Blanca Munoz against her employer, The Berne Group, Inc., a non-subscriber to workers' compensation, after a jury verdict favored the employer in a personal injury claim. Munoz appealed two points of error: the trial court's failure to submit a requested jury instruction on the employer's duty to provide a safe workplace, and the court allowing the jury panel to hear a verdict from another similar case during voir dire. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It ruled that Munoz failed to preserve the jury instruction error and did not demonstrate actual harm from the voir dire incident, thus overruling both points of error.

Personal InjuryEmployer Non-SubscriberAppellate ProcedureJury InstructionsVoir DirePreservation of ErrorAbuse of DiscretionSafe Workplace DutyTexas AppealsCivil Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Report of the Special Grand Jury

This case involves five appeals challenging the procedures and evidence supporting a Special Grand Jury's reports, which recommended discipline or removal for employees of the Monroe County Department of Social Services. The Grand Jury was empanelled in 1978 to investigate the department's handling of child abuse cases. Although the County Court accepted the reports for filing, it sealed them pending appeal and later affirmed its decision. The appellate court, however, found significant procedural irregularities, including inadequate jury instructions and improper subcommittee formation, and determined that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate the misconduct charges against the appellants. Consequently, the County Court's orders were reversed, and the Grand Jury reports were ordered to be sealed.

Grand Jury ReportChild Abuse InvestigationMonroe County Department of Social ServicesPublic Servants MisconductProcedural IrregularitiesSufficiency of EvidenceGrand Jury InstructionsSealing ReportsCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 2-05-350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2008

Margaret Young, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of William R. Young v. Venkateswarlu Thota, M.D. and North Texas Cardiology Center

Appellant Margaret Young appealed an adverse jury verdict in a medical malpractice case against Dr. Thota and North Texas Cardiology Center, stemming from her deceased husband William R. Young's cardiac catheterization. Young alleged Dr. Thota's negligence caused an arterial tear and subsequent complications due to improper catheter placement and failure to diagnose. The trial court's jury charge included instructions on William Young's contributory negligence and Dr. Thota's new and independent cause. The appellate court found errors in the jury charge regarding the submission of contributory negligence as a liability theory instead of a damages mitigation instruction, and the inclusion of a new and independent cause instruction for Dr. Thota. Concluding that these errors were harmful and precluded a fair trial, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Medical MalpracticeContributory NegligenceJury Charge ErrorProximate CauseHarm AnalysisInferential Rebuttal InstructionsUnavoidable AccidentNew and Independent CauseCardiac CatheterizationArterial Laceration
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mathis v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Co.

Carolyn Mathis appealed a judgment in her workers' compensation case, contesting a verdict of temporary total disability. She argued that the trial court's jury instruction regarding "unjustifiable refusal to accept employment" created an irreconcilable conflict when read alongside the "total incapacity" instruction and lacked sufficient evidentiary support. The appellate court disagreed, finding the instructions properly explained total incapacity and the insurer's affirmative defense under Texas workers' compensation laws. The court found no error or conflict in the charge and affirmed the trial court's discretion in submitting the instruction. Additionally, the judgment was affirmed on the basis of harmless error, as the jury ultimately found Mathis's injury resulted in total incapacity, negating any potential prejudice from the challenged instruction.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Total DisabilityJury InstructionsUnjustifiable Refusal of EmploymentTotal IncapacityAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewHarmless ErrorTexas LawJury Confusion
References
5
Case No. N-26238
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Davis

R. F. Davis initiated a lawsuit in Hutchinson County, Texas, to challenge an inadequate compensation award from the Industrial Accident Board for injuries sustained during his employment with Phillips Petroleum Company. Davis, a steel worker and carpenter's helper, suffered severe burns, broken bones in his arm and pelvis from an explosion. The jury found him permanently and totally incapacitated, necessitating a lump sum settlement. Texas Indemnity Insurance Company appealed, contesting the district court's jurisdiction and asserting error in the jury instructions. The appellate court found the jury instruction, which revealed the legal effect of their answers, to be prejudicial and reversible error, consequently reversing the judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryJury InstructionsBurden of ProofAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardTexas LawReversal
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nicholes v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

Eudice Nicholes sought death benefits in a worker’s compensation case after her husband, James Nicholes, suffered a fatal heart attack. The jury failed to find that the heart attack was related to his employment, leading to a take-nothing judgment against Nicholes. The court of appeals affirmed this decision, and the higher court originally refused writ. On motion for rehearing, the application was still refused with no reversible error. The court addressed Nicholes' argument regarding an improper jury instruction concerning a heart attack in the course of employment, but could not determine harmful error due to a partial statement of facts, while approving Texas Pattern Jury Charges PJC 29.04 (1970) as a proper instruction.

Death BenefitsHeart Attack InjuryCourse of EmploymentJury InstructionsMotion for RehearingAppellate ProcedureNo Reversible ErrorSufficiency of EvidenceFatal InjuryCausation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ledesma v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Rafael Ledesma appealed a worker's compensation award from the Texas Industrial Accident Board, leading to a jury trial in Polk County. The jury found against Ledesma regarding his injury, resulting in a take-nothing judgment. Ledesma presented four points of error concerning the exclusion of expert medical testimony, the exclusion of a witness's testimony on medication costs, a jury instruction on sole cause, and the factual sufficiency of the evidence. The court found no reversible error, ruling that procedural rules were not fully complied with for the expert testimony, the exclusion of cost testimony was harmless, the sole cause instruction was proper due to evidence of a prior injury, and the verdict was not manifestly unjust. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Worker's CompensationJury TrialAppealExcluded EvidenceExpert TestimonyMedical TestimonySole Cause InstructionFactual SufficiencyManifestly Unjust VerdictDeposition Testimony
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. City of Houston

Billy Earl Johnson, a sanitation worker, sued the City of Houston for wrongful termination, alleging he was fired in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim after being injured in 1986. Following a jury verdict in favor of the City, Johnson appealed, citing three points of error related to evidence exclusion, discussion of a prior settlement, and omitted jury instructions. The appellate court, presided over by Justice Anderson, affirmed the trial court's decision. It found no abuse of discretion in excluding testimony about another alleged retaliation incident, as it did not meet the criteria for routine practice or a common scheme. Furthermore, the court determined Johnson failed to preserve error regarding the settlement discussion and the jury instruction omission, upholding the judgment.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawEvidence AdmissibilityAppellate ProcedureJury InstructionsAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawCivil Service CommissionDiscrimination
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TEXAS a & M UNIVERSITY v. Chambers

William H. (Hank) Chambers sued Texas A & M University, its Research Group, and the College of Geoscience and Maritime Studies under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliatory termination after reporting suspected illegal activities. A jury initially found in favor of Chambers, awarding him over $195,000. On appeal, Texas A & M contended that the trial court erred by instructing the jury with a statutory presumption of retaliation after it had been rebutted, and by incorrectly calculating prejudgment interest. The appellate court sustained Texas A & M’s points of error, finding the jury instruction on the presumption to be an improper comment on the weight of the evidence and noting errors in the interest calculation. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.

Whistleblower ActRetaliatory TerminationJury InstructionsStatutory PresumptionBurden of ProofPrejudgment InterestFuture EarningsAppellate ReviewRemandGovernment Code
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rendon v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

In this worker's compensation case, appellant Consuelo Pena Rendon appealed a jury's findings on her disability duration following a 1975 back injury sustained as a housekeeper. She challenged the jury's failure to find permanent total disability for 401 weeks, arguing it was against the evidence. Rendon also raised points of error regarding the admission of an undated notice of injury and the trial court's instructions on nursing care for family members. Justice Dodson, presiding, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding the jury's decision on disability not manifestly unjust and the alleged evidentiary and instructional errors to be harmless. The court clarified that family members could recover for 'extraordinary services' beyond normal marital or family obligations for nursing care.

Disability DurationBack InjuryHousekeeperLumbar Disc SurgeryElectromyogramNeurological EvaluationJury FindingsEvidentiary AdmissibilityCross-ExaminationJury Instructions
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 5,746 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