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. Waterview Nursing Home

A 63-year-old nurse’s aide sustained work-related injuries and her workers’ compensation case was established. She was offered a light-duty position by her employer, but her daughter informed the employer that claimant could not work. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently concluded that by rejecting the offer, claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from employment and denied her further benefits. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the employer failed to provide substantial evidence regarding the specifics of the light-duty position, its requirements, duties, or suitability for the claimant's medical limitations. The court held that without such proof, the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal was not supported by substantial evidence. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Workers' CompensationLight-Duty AssignmentVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketMedical LimitationsSubstantial EvidenceReversalRemittiturNurse's AideEmployment Benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Okonski v. Pollio Dairy Products Corp.

Claimant sustained a work-related back injury in September 1987 and was subsequently paid temporary total disability benefits. Medical evaluations in December 1987 and January 1988 indicated that the claimant had a continuing partial disability but could perform light duty work, which the employer offered. The employer contended that the claimant's loss of wages after January 18, 1988, was due to her failure to accept this light duty offer, constituting a voluntary withdrawal from the labor market. The Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that the claimant did not voluntarily leave the labor market, finding her actions, including her initial reluctance to work the night shift due to its impact on her daughter's well-being and her attempts to contact the employer for alternative arrangements, to be reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no basis to overturn its findings.

Workers Compensation AppealLight Duty EmploymentVoluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketPartial DisabilityWage LossEmployer OfferReasonableness of RefusalNight ShiftDaughter's Well-beingHuman Resources Manager
References
1
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

North v. New Venture Gear

The Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on July 27, 2007, ruled that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. This ruling stemmed from an earlier determination by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, who found that the claimant refused a light-duty work offer from the employer and failed to maintain an attachment to the labor market after sustaining work-related wrist, neck, and shoulder injuries. The employer had initially paid benefits but sought suspension in July 2003. The Board’s decision was affirmed, as the court found substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the light-duty assignment was consistent with the claimant's medical restrictions, as determined by Dr. Richard Zogby, an orthopedic surgeon. The court also noted that the issue of involuntary retirement was not raised or developed by the claimant before the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge.

Voluntary Withdrawal from Labor MarketLight-Duty Work RefusalPermanent Partial DisabilityWork RestrictionsAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionFactual DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceClaimant AppealEmployer Benefits Suspension
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Campos

Rodrigo Campos, an employee of Freedman Brothers Packing Company, sustained injuries during an altercation with his foreman, Alexis Abarca, on February 17, 1981. He was diagnosed with chest pain and later developed lower back pain, leading to a lumbar laminectomy. After returning to light duty, he experienced recurrent back pain and was eventually refused continued employment without an unconditional medical release, which his doctor, Dr. Jocson, refused to provide due to his medical history. The jury found Campos to be totally and permanently incapacitated since March 4, 1981. The Texas Employers’ Insurance Association appealed the jury's findings and the resulting judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workers' CompensationPermanent IncapacityCourse of EmploymentProducing CauseMedical TestimonyJury VerdictAppealInjuryBack InjuryLumbar Laminectomy
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Lighting & Power Co. v. Allen & Coon Construction Co.

Gordon Wagner, employed by Frank Crown Plastering Company, was electrocuted, leading to Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA), the compensation carrier, paying nearly $30,000 in benefits. Wagner then sued Allen & Coon Construction Company (A&C) and Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) as third-party tortfeasors. TEIA intervened to recover its expenditures. A&C settled with Wagner for $80,000 and agreed to indemnify Wagner against TEIA's claims. HL&P later settled with Wagner for another $80,000, and TEIA endorsed the checks, with Wagner receiving the full proceeds. Wagner then assigned his indemnity rights against A&C to TEIA. TEIA sued A&C, and A&C sought contribution from HL&P. The trial court granted summary judgment for TEIA against A&C and for A&C for contribution from HL&P. On appeal, the court affirmed TEIA's judgment against A&C, based on the "first money" rule, establishing A&C's liability to TEIA upon its initial settlement with Wagner. However, the court reversed the judgment awarding A&C contribution from HL&P, concluding that A&C had only settled its own liability and failed to establish a claim for contribution.

Worker's Compensation SubrogationThird-Party TortfeasorSettlement AgreementIndemnity AgreementSummary JudgmentContributionJoint and Several LiabilityFirst Money RuleAppellate DecisionPersonal Injury
References
12
Case No. 2016-08-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2016

Humphreys, Jerry v. Prestigious Placement, Inc.

Jerry Humphreys, a fifty-year-old employee, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing against Prestigious Placement, Inc., his uninsured employer, seeking continued medical and temporary disability benefits for work-related neck and back injuries sustained on June 18, 2015. Humphreys reported the injury to Americraft supervisor and then Prestigious, receiving initial treatment and benefits until January 15, 2016, when benefits were terminated due to alleged refusal of light duty work and fabricated claims. The Court found Humphreys injured himself at work and that the employer's defenses lacked evidence, including their claim of willful misconduct or refusal of light duty work. Presiding Judge Jim Umsted ruled that Humphreys is entitled to continued medical treatment with his authorized treating physician, Dr. Murrell, and ongoing temporary partial disability benefits from January 16, 2016, forward. Additionally, the Court awarded Humphreys' attorney a fee of twenty percent of the temporary disability award.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityNeck InjuryBack InjuryCervical MyelopathyUninsured EmployerWork-Related AccidentSedentary Work RestrictionsAttorney's Fees
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1995

Campbell v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Margaret Campbell, as executrix of her deceased husband Danny Campbell's estate, sued Houston Independent School District and several insurance entities for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, DTPA violations, and Insurance Code violations. Danny Campbell, an HISD employee, ingested formaldehyde from his thermos at work, leading to his death. The defendants denied workers' compensation coverage, claiming it was not an "on-the-job injury" due to a "personal animosity" exception. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants on grounds of no breach of duty, statute of limitations, and governmental immunity. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Campbell's injury occurred in the course of employment and whether the denial of payment was reasonable. The court also found the claims were within the statute of limitations and that the defendants were not entitled to governmental immunity. The case was remanded for a trial on the merits.

Workers' CompensationGood Faith and Fair DealingSummary Judgment ReviewAppellate CourtInsurance Bad FaithCourse of EmploymentPersonal Animosity ExceptionStatute of Limitations DefenseGovernmental ImmunityFormaldehyde Poisoning
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. 04-08-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2009

Midwest Employers Casualty Company on Behalf of Terry English v. Charles Harpole, Jim Carroll, Alan Kwast, Albert Lopez and Brock Pittman

This appeal examines a negligence claim brought by Midwest Employers Casualty Company, on behalf of injured football coach Terry English, against several referees, including Charles Harpole. English sustained a severe head injury after Harpole collided with him in a designated restricted area during a high school football game. Midwest, the worker's compensation insurer for English's employer, argued the referees had a duty to enforce safety rules and that Harpole failed to exercise reasonable care. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the referees, ruling that Harpole owed no duty to foresee English's presence in the restricted area, as English was in violation of game rules, and there was no evidence of a breach of duty by the referees.

AppealSummary JudgmentNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilitySports LawFootball RefereePersonal InjuryWorker's CompensationTexas Law
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 17,403 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