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

Catlett v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America

Audrey Catlett, the widow of William Catlett, pursued a workers' compensation claim against Lawson Electric Company and its insurer, alleging William's lung cancer was caused by prolonged asbestos exposure while working at Rock-Tenn Company. The central legal question was whether William Catlett qualified as a "loaned servant" to Rock-Tenn, which would absolve his nominal employer, Lawson Electric, from liability. The trial court initially sided with Catlett, ruling against Lawson Electric. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, concluding that Catlett was indeed a loaned servant of Rock-Tenn based on the degree of control exercised, the nature of his work, and the implied employment relationship with Rock-Tenn, thus relieving Lawson Electric of responsibility.

Workers' CompensationLoaned Servant DoctrineAsbestos ExposureLung CancerEmployer LiabilityImplied EmploymentControl TestSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerTennessee Law
References
9
Case No. 11-09-00005-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Facility Insurance Corporation v. Kevin Loyd Gibbs

Kevin Loyd Gibbs suffered a workers' compensation injury in 1993, leading to lifetime income benefits from the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation. Facility Insurance Corporation appealed this determination, seeking to introduce new evidence regarding Gibbs's condition developed after the administrative process. Gibbs argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction for new evidence beyond the November 29, 2005, contested case hearing date. The trial court agreed, limiting jurisdiction to Gibbs's entitlement to benefits as of that date, allowing new evidence only if relevant to his condition on November 29, 2005. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, stating that the court's jurisdiction is limited to the issue presented at the original hearing and new evidence must pertain to that specific date.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealJurisdictionNew EvidenceLifetime Income BenefitsDisabilityAdministrative RemediesAppellate ReviewTrial Court AuthorityTexas Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loyd v. Pierce

The case concerns the death of A. A. Pierce, an employee of J. Ernest Loyd, in a construction accident on April 10, 1933. His dependents, Ona Pierce, Alvin Archie Pierce, and Leroy Pierce, previously received workers' compensation but sought exemplary damages, alleging Loyd's gross negligence. They claimed the superintendent failed to warn Pierce of dynamite blasts and did not brace the excavation site, leading to a fatal cave-in. The trial court found for the plaintiffs, awarding $8,000. On appeal, the higher court examined whether the evidence met the standard for gross negligence, defined as 'conscious indifference.' The court found that the precautions taken were reasonable and there was no evidence of conscious indifference to danger. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a decision in favor of the appellant, J. Ernest Loyd.

Gross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkers' Compensation ActConstruction AccidentDynamite BlastingWorkplace SafetyConscious IndifferenceAppellate ReviewReversed JudgmentAssumption of Risk
References
9
Case No. 14-23-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2024

Loyd Landon Sorrow Sr. v. University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and Michael Seale, M.D.

Loyd Landon Sorrow Sr., representing himself, appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (UTHealth) and Michael Seale, M.D. Sorrow alleged tort, statutory, and constitutional violations stemming from medical treatment received in 2001-2002 while in the custody of the Harris County Sheriff, specifically concerning prescribed medications that he claimed caused adverse reactions and impaired his judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Sorrow's claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations for health-care-liability claims, and he failed to establish entitlement to equitable tolling. The court noted Sorrow had consistently alleged these injuries since 2002, demonstrating awareness of the alleged wrong before the limitations period expired. Furthermore, the court rejected the application of the 'Hughes Rule' to health-care claims, thereby upholding the summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsHealth Care LiabilityEquitable TollingMedical MalpracticePro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewPre-trial DetentionPrescription MedicationDue Process Claim
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loyd Elec. Co., Inc. v. Millett

Loyd Electric Company appeals a judgment finding it liable for negligence and strict liability in tort for injuries to Henry Millett, caused by an electrical explosion on August 18, 1980. Millett, an employee of Dean Word Construction Company, was injured while working on a switchbox designed and installed by Loyd. Loyd's appeal challenged the jury's finding of no contributory negligence by Millett and the refusal to submit a charge on the employer's contributory negligence, among other points. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding on Millett's contributory negligence, citing evidence that Millett followed established practices. The court also upheld the refusal to consider the employer's negligence. However, the court found the award for Millett's loss of future earning capacity to be excessive, suggesting a remittitur of $142,916.93. The judgment is conditionally affirmed, pending Millett's acceptance of the remittitur.

Electrical ExplosionNegligenceStrict LiabilityContributory NegligenceRemittiturLoss of Earning CapacityJury VerdictAppellate ReviewTexas LawWorkplace Injury
References
31
Case No. 2017-05-0515
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2018

Watson, Robert v. Catlett Construction

The case involves Robert Watson (Employee) against Catlett Construction (Employer) and Auto Owners Ins. Co. (Carrier) regarding an alleged back and left shoulder injury from June 23, 2016. The Expedited Hearing on February 8, 2018, addressed whether Watson was entitled to medical treatment and temporary disability benefits, focusing on the statute of limitations, notice, and compensability. The Court found that the statute of limitations did not bar the claim and notice was likely adequate, but Mr. Watson failed to prove his injuries arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of his employment. Consequently, the Court denied the requested medical and temporary disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingStatute of LimitationsNotice of InjuryCompensabilityPrimary CausationMedical Treatment BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsBack InjuryShoulder Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ 2674252
Regular
Apr 21, 2008

LOYD CATLETT vs. ENTERTAINMENT PARTNERS, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY OF READING PENNSYLVANIA c/o CNA CLAIMPLUS

This case concerns the calculation of temporary partial disability benefits for a stuntman injured on July 28, 2001, and November 2000. The applicant argued that benefits should be calculated weekly and that later payments should be at the current rate per Labor Code section 4661.5. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that benefits were properly calculated by comparing total pre-injury average weekly earnings to actual earnings over the entire disability period, reflecting the sporadic nature of the applicant's work. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 4661.5 only applies to temporary total disability, not temporary partial disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLoyd CatlettEntertainment PartnersContinental Casualtytemporary partial disabilityjoint findings and orderreconsiderationworkers' compensation administrative law judgetemporary disability benefitsEDD benefits
References
10
Case No. ADJ8820335
Regular
Apr 17, 2017

RAHSHON LOYD vs. DOLAN CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, OLD REPUBLIC CONTRACTORS INSURANCE GROUP, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns the calculation of applicant Rahshon Loyd's average weekly earnings (AWE) for temporary disability indemnity following a $100\%$ permanent and total industrial injury. The defendant argued the WCJ erred by calculating AWE based on a presumed 40-hour work week, instead of applicant's actual irregular earnings history. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that while applicant's earning capacity was relevant, his historical earnings as a union cement mason, even after attaining journeyman status, did not consistently reflect a 40-hour work week. Consequently, the Board amended the decision to calculate AWE as an average of his weekly wage over the three years prior to injury, resulting in a reduced temporary disability rate.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAverage Weekly EarningsTemporary Disability IndemnityLabor Code Section 4453Earning CapacityUnion Cement MasonJourneymanPermanent and Total DisabilityVocational EvaluatorPetition for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. 03-02-00030-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2003

Qwest Communications International, Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation And SP Construction Services, Inc./ AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. CK Directional Drilling v. AT&T Corp. AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc./Qwest Communications International Inc. Qwest Communications Corporation SP Construction Services, Inc. C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. CK Directional Drilling

This case involves an appeal from a judgment awarding economic and exemplary damages to AT&T for fiber-optic cable damage caused by Qwest and its subcontractors, CK Directional Drilling and C&S Directional Boring Company, Inc. The core dispute arose from three instances in 1997 where AT&T's cables were severed during Qwest's fiber-optic network construction. Qwest, CK, and AT&T all appealed the district court's final judgment, challenging various aspects, including malice findings, the validity of a Rule 11 agreement, damage calculations, and vicarious liability. The appellate court affirmed the findings of malice against Qwest and C&S, and Qwest's liability for its subcontractors' actions. However, it reversed the breach-of-contract damages awarded to AT&T due to insufficient evidence and upheld the district court's calculation of exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Fiber-optic cable damageTelecommunications infrastructureSubcontractor liabilityExemplary damagesMaliceRule 11 agreementBreach of contractPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewVicarious liability
References
0
Case No. ADJ1997800
Regular
Jan 26, 2009

PRYSCILLA LOYD vs. CSAA and ACE USA, Adjusted By ESIS

Defendant's petition for reconsideration denied. WCJ's dismissal of applicant's claim rescinded; matter returned to trial level.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Denying PetitionDeclarations of Readiness to ProceedDORsDismissal of ClaimPsychiatric InjuryMedical-Legal ReportPanel QMEContinuance
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15 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