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. 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

Claim of Rushnek v. Ford Motor Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Ford Motor Company was entirely responsible for a claimant's hearing loss, which began with a 13% pre-employment loss and progressed to 23.2% by retirement. Ford appealed this decision, challenging its liability for the pre-existing portion of the hearing loss, especially considering the timing of the relevant Workers' Compensation Law provisions. The court clarified that the date of disablement, in this instance, was August 1974, thus making Workers' Compensation Law § 49-ee applicable. It determined that while the last employer is generally liable for total hearing loss, an exception exists for pre-existing, occupationally caused hearing loss, allowing for reimbursement. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the case, instructing further proceedings to ascertain if the claimant's initial hearing loss was work-related, which would then allow Ford to seek reimbursement from prior employers.

Workers' Compensation LawOccupational hearing lossEmployer liabilityPre-existing conditionReimbursement proceduresDate of disablementAudiometric examinationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationFord Motor Company
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bryce v. Shipyard

A claimant for the employer suffered occupational binaural hearing loss over 48 years of employment, initially estimated at 40%. A federal claim under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act was rejected on procedural grounds in 1950. After retirement in 1958, a state claim was filed, leading to a Workmen’s Compensation Board finding of 47% hearing loss. The employer and its carrier appealed, arguing prior disability and federal pre-emption. The Appellate Division affirmed the board's decision, applying the "twilight zone" rule and stating that the prior federal claim's procedural rejection did not preclude state jurisdiction.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationLongshoremen's ActJurisdictionTwilight Zone RuleFederal PreemptionSchedule AwardTimelinessNotice RequirementsAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cruz v. City of New York Department of Children's Services

Claimant, injured in an automobile accident while working, received workers' compensation benefits and later settled a third-party action. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the self-insured employer was not entitled to offset the third-party settlement against a schedule loss of use (SLU) award, even for the portion initially designated as temporary total disability. The employer appealed, arguing the offset was permissible because the weekly award exceeded statutory thresholds for basic economic loss. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that a schedule loss of use award is not allocable to any specific period of disability and thus is not subject to offset under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 against first-party benefits, regardless of initial labeling or monthly rate.

Schedule Loss of Use Award OffsetThird-Party SettlementTemporary Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityBasic Economic LossNo-Fault LawInsurance LawStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 29Appellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pacific Employers Insurance v. Dayton

Appellant Pacific Employers Insurance Company appealed a jury's finding that appellee Ruthann Dayton was entitled to Lifetime Income Benefits (LIBs) under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act due to total loss of use of her hands. Dayton, a former riveter, suffered carpal tunnel syndrome and underwent multiple surgeries. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel had previously determined her entitlement to LIBs. Pacific Employers challenged the trial court's judgment, arguing insufficient evidence, an improper jury charge regarding the definition of "total loss of use", and erroneous attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding, the jury charge correctly applied the law, and the attorney's fees award was proper.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsTotal Loss of UseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeAppellate ReviewJury VerdictEvidentiary SufficiencyMedical ImpairmentTreating PhysicianOccupational Health
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Griffin v. Texas Employers' Insurance Association

Plaintiff Edd Griffin sued Texas Employers’ Insurance Association to recover workmen's compensation for the total loss of use of his right eye following a workplace incident. The trial court granted an instructed verdict for the defendant, finding no evidence that the injury was the producing cause of the eye loss, particularly due to the absence of expert medical testimony. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed this decision. The Supreme Court also affirmed, concluding that even if expert testimony was not required, Griffin failed to discharge his burden to prove by lay testimony that the injury in reasonable probability caused the loss of use of his eye, as the evidence presented was deemed speculative.

Workers' CompensationEye InjuryCausationExpert Medical TestimonyLay TestimonyBurden of ProofInstructed VerdictTexas Supreme CourtAppellate ReviewReasonable Medical Probability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moffett v. Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n.

W. J. Day filed a workman's compensation suit against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association after sustaining injuries on December 24, 1943, while working at a parking lot. The trial court ruled in favor of the insurance carrier, leading Day's heir, Stella Moffett, to appeal. The core legal question was whether Day's parking lot employment was covered by the employer Ballard Burgher's insurance policy, which primarily listed construction-related classifications. An endorsement adding parking lot coverage was made retroactively after the injury. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the insurance agent lacked authority to issue a retroactive endorsement for a pre-existing loss and that Day was not an employee of Ballard Burgher in the insured business at the time of injury, as the parking lot was a distinct operation under Overpass Auto Park, Inc.

Workmen's CompensationInsurance Policy CoverageRetroactive EndorsementEmployer LiabilityScope of EmploymentSeparate BusinessesAgent AuthorityPre-existing LossAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Goforth

Oscar B. Goforth, a roughneck, filed a workmen’s compensation suit against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association after sustaining a disabling back injury on November 18, 1955, while employed by the Hunter estate. A jury found he suffered ten weeks of total disability and 55% permanent partial disability. The trial court awarded Goforth 300 weeks of partial incapacity at $25 a week. Texas Employers’ Insurance Association appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for partial incapacity due to Goforth earning higher wages as a driller post-injury, and also raised points about jury instructions and attorney arguments. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, stating that compensation is for diminution of earning capacity, not solely loss of earnings, and that ample evidence supported the jury’s finding of 55% partial disability. The court specifically overruled objections regarding the submission of special issue number fourteen, the consideration of Billy Joe Lewis's work history, and the various arguments made by Goforth's attorney concerning witness absence, doctor bias, and the finality of the case. They concluded that no reversible error was found, thus upholding the lower court's decision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityDiminution of Earning CapacityJury FindingsAttorney MisconductMedical Examiner BiasTrial Court AffirmationAppealBack InjuryOil Field Employment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Barker

In this workers’ compensation case, Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA) appealed a judgment awarding Laverne Barker cumulative benefits for 210 weeks due to the loss of use of her left thumb and hand. The core issue was whether compensation for both injuries could be cumulated. The jury found permanent total loss of use for both the thumb and the hand. However, the appellate court, interpreting Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306, § 12, determined that Barker suffered a single injury to her hand, which included the thumb. Consequently, the court held that Barker was entitled to compensation for 150 weeks for the hand injury only. The judgment was reversed and remanded for recalculation.

Injury BenefitsLoss of UseThumb InjuryHand InjuryCumulative CompensationConcurrent IncapacitiesStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureJury FindingsTexas Civil Statutes
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elena E. Francisco, Inc. v. Texas Employment Commission

Manuel Diaz, a supervisor, was discharged from his employment for allegedly lying about a December 6, 1987 incident involving alleged marihuana use. The Texas Employment Commission (TEC) granted him unemployment compensation benefits, finding no misconduct. The employer appealed this decision, raising two points of error: (1) insufficient evidence to support the TEC's ruling and (2) trial court error in excluding evidence of other misconduct not presented to the Commission. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, which had upheld the TEC's ruling, emphasizing that the 'substantial evidence' rule is the correct standard of review for TEC decisions, despite statutory language implying a de novo trial. The court also found no error in the trial court's handling of the additional misconduct evidence.

Unemployment BenefitsEmployment TerminationWorkplace MisconductLyingMarihuana UseSubstantial Evidence ReviewTrial De NovoAppellate ProcedureAdministrative LawTexas Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 16,266 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