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. 04-15-00117-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2015

Rhino Contractors, LLC v. Vulcan Construction Materials, LP

Rhino Contractors, LLC, appeals a trial court's default judgment in favor of Vulcan Construction Materials, LP. Vulcan sued Rhino for breach of contract or on a sworn account, alleging Rhino failed to pay $454,846.76 for materials supplied for its construction business, plus 18% interest and attorney's fees. The default judgment included these amounts along with prejudgment interest and court costs. Rhino argues the trial court erred in denying its motion for new trial because it never received proper notice of the lawsuit, thus failing to file an answer. Rhino also asserts it has a meritorious defense, including claims of double billing and improper credits on invoices from Vulcan, and that granting a new trial would not prejudice Vulcan. Furthermore, Rhino contends the damages, prejudgment interest, and attorney's fees awarded were unliquidated and not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence, as Vulcan's affidavit lacked an itemized account and its attorney's fee affidavit did not meet required evidentiary standards.

Default JudgmentBreach of ContractSworn AccountMotion for New TrialService of ProcessCraddock FactorsMeritorious DefenseDamagesPrejudgment InterestAttorney's Fees
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alley v. Consolidation Coal Co.

The case involves an appeal by Consolidation Coal Company against an unnamed plaintiff who was awarded worker's compensation benefits. The plaintiff, a former underground coal miner for forty-nine years, was found to be totally and permanently disabled due to pneumoconiosis. The primary issue on appeal concerned the applicable standard of appellate review, as Chapter 393 of the Public Acts of 1985 introduced a new de novo standard effective July 1, 1985, replacing the previous material evidence standard. The court ruled that the new standard applied prospectively to causes of action arising on or after July 1, 1985, thus the material evidence standard was applicable to this case, which arose prior to that date. Under this standard, the court affirmed the chancellor's findings, supported by expert medical testimony, that the plaintiff's disability from coal miner's pneumoconiosis was total and permanent.

PneumoconiosisOccupational DisabilityAppellate Review StandardStatutory InterpretationRetrospective ApplicationProspective ApplicationMaterial Evidence StandardDe Novo ReviewCoal MiningMedical Expert Testimony
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arias v. DURO STANDARD PRODUCTS CO.

The employee, Aisia Arias, sought workers’ compensation benefits alleging occupational asthma due to workplace dust exposure at Duro Standard Products. The trial court admitted an independent medical evaluation report from Dr. Thurman as a business record and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, contending that the report was inadmissible and that Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-235 was the exclusive method for introducing medical evidence. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed that section 50-6-235 is not exclusive but found that Dr. Thurman's report, prepared for litigation, lacked the inherent trustworthiness required for the business records exception under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(6). Consequently, with the report excluded, the remaining evidence was deemed insufficient to establish causation or permanency. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the trial court's judgment and dismissed the complaint.

occupational asthmaworkers' compensation benefitsmedical report admissibilityhearsay exceptionbusiness records exceptionindependent medical evaluationcausation in workers' comppermanent partial impairmentTennessee Rules of Evidencestatutory interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commercial Standard Insurance Company v. Villa

Lonardo Villa filed a workmen's compensation case against Commercial Standard Insurance Company seeking benefits for total and permanent incapacity resulting from an employment injury. The jury found in favor of Villa, a decision upheld by the trial court, prompting an appeal from the insurance company. Appellant Commercial Standard raised multiple points of error, primarily challenging the method of calculating Villa's wage rate and the finding of permanent disability. The appellate court examined the sufficiency of evidence regarding the wage rate determination under Article 8309 and the medical testimony supporting Villa's permanent incapacity. Concluding that all points raised by the appellant lacked merit, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workmen's CompensationTotal Permanent IncapacityWage Rate CalculationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityMedical EvidenceProcedural ErrorStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shelton v. Standard Fire Insurance Co.

This worker's compensation case involves an appeal by Billie Joe Shelton against a take-nothing judgment in favor of the carrier, Standard Fire Insurance Company. The appellant challenged the trial court's decision to grant the defendant's motion to withdraw deemed admissions and motion to enlarge time for serving answers to interrogatories, citing an alleged lack of proof. However, the appellate court found that the trial court's order, which recited that evidence and arguments were heard, belied this claim. The court emphasized the appellant's responsibility to provide a sufficient record on appeal and, in the absence of a statement of facts from the pretrial hearing, presumed that the evidence supported the trial court's findings. Consequently, both points of error raised by the appellant were overruled, and the judgment was affirmed.

Worker's CompensationAppealDeemed AdmissionsDiscoveryAbuse of DiscretionInsufficient RecordTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Appellate ProcedureJudgment AffirmedPretrial Hearing
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Cuellar

Marcos M. Cuellar, an employee of Stowers Furniture Company, suffered an insect sting on April 4, 1969, while driving a company truck, leading to total permanent disability. The Standard Fire Insurance Company, the workmen's compensation carrier, appealed the jury's finding of disability, arguing insufficient evidence for the sting and lack of causal relationship between the employment and injury. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, including Cuellar's testimony, a co-worker's account, and a dermatologist's opinion, affirming the jury's finding that the sting occurred. The court also rejected the argument that the insect sting was not a risk inherent to the employment, citing precedents where similar arguments were overruled in workmen's compensation cases involving insect stings. The trial court's judgment awarding Cuellar recovery for total permanent disability was affirmed.

Workmen's CompensationInsect Sting InjuryTotal Permanent DisabilityCourse of EmploymentCausal RelationshipRisk of EmploymentJury FindingsAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceTrial Court Affirmed
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arrellano v. Texas Employment Commission

Mr. Gilberto U. Arrellano appealed the denial of unemployment benefits by the Texas Employment Commission (TEC), which had found he voluntarily left his work with Holguin Bros. without good cause. Arrellano challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment, arguing an incorrect standard of review was used and genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the proper standard of review for TEC decisions is the "substantial evidence/trial de novo" standard, which involves a legal question of whether the agency's ruling is supported by substantial evidence. The court further clarified that summary judgment is appropriate in such cases since the fact-finding is concluded at the administrative level. The court found that despite conflicting evidence presented to the Commission, there was sufficient substantial evidence to support the TEC's finding that Arrellano voluntarily separated from his employment.

Unemployment Benefits AppealVoluntary QuittingSubstantial Evidence StandardTrial De Novo ReviewSummary Judgment ProprietyAdministrative Agency DecisionsAppellate Court AffirmationTexas LawEmployment Commission RulingJudicial Review of Agency Action
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Morelli v. Tops Markets

Claimant, having sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and receiving benefits, was questioned by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) regarding work activities at a 2011 hearing. Immediately after, the employer and its carrier sought to introduce surveillance video and investigator testimony, alleging a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The WCLJ denied this request and precluded the evidence, ruling that the carrier failed to disclose the surveillance prior to the claimant's testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, reiterating the established requirement for timely disclosure of surveillance materials to prevent 'gamesmanship.' The appellate court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary or capricious action, as the carrier had an opportunity to disclose the evidence before prompting the WCLJ's questioning and before the claimant testified.

Workers' Compensation LawSurveillance EvidenceDisclosure ObligationPreclusion of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidence AdmissibilityClaimant TestimonyEmployer ResponsibilitiesCarrier ResponsibilitiesBoard Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Standard Register Co.

This retaliatory discharge case revolves around Ms. Anderson, an employee who was terminated by her employer, Standard, due to a facially neutral absence control policy after sustaining a work-related injury and being absent for over 26 weeks. Ms. Anderson subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging that her discharge was in retaliation for asserting a workers' compensation claim. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding no direct evidence of retaliatory intent and upholding the neutral absence policy. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed these judgments, concluding that the employer's policy did not constitute a 'device' to circumvent workers' compensation obligations and that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between her claim and her termination.

Retaliatory dischargeAbsence control policyWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentCausal relationshipEmployment-at-willPublic policy exceptionSubstantial factor testNeutral policyDisability benefits
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campbell v. Interstate Materials Corporation

The claimant, an operating manager for Interstate Materials Corporation, suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knees in August 2006 and a second lower back injury in April 2008. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially classified the claimant with a permanent total disability and struck the independent medical examiner's report. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the IME report improperly precluded due to the examiner's hospitalization and reclassified the claimant with a permanent partial disability, equally apportioned between the two accidents. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in considering the IME report and that substantial evidence supported both the permanent partial disability classification and the equal apportionment of the disability.

Permanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardApportionment of DisabilityMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Cross-Examination RightsAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 17,449 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