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

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Evers

M. W. Evers, an employee, suffered a 40% partial permanent incapacity to his right shoulder due to an injury sustained while working for Columbian Carbon Company. He was awarded compensation for 300 weeks from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. The insurance association appealed, challenging the compensation award primarily because Evers continued to work for approximately 52 weeks post-injury at his regular wage. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that continued employment, especially under necessity and with employer/colleague assistance, does not negate a claim for permanent partial incapacity under workmen's compensation law, which should be liberally construed. The court also addressed and rejected the appellant's points of error regarding jury findings and newly discovered evidence.

Workers' CompensationPartial Permanent IncapacityAppellate ReviewAffirmation of JudgmentEarning CapacityContinued EmploymentMedical TestimonyShoulder InjuryNew Trial MotionJury Verdict
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 1975

Abeyta v. Travelers Insurance Co.

In this workers' compensation case, the plaintiff challenged the jury's findings that his injury was not the producing cause of any total or partial incapacity. He also contended that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of unemployment compensation benefits. The plaintiff sustained an injury on June 28, 1974, while working for W. D. Turner Construction Company, but medical examinations showed no objective findings of injury and he returned to work. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the jury's decision was supported by ample evidence and that any error in admitting evidence of unemployment benefits was harmless.

Workers' CompensationSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsProducing CauseIncapacityUnemployment BenefitsAdmissibility of EvidenceHarmless ErrorMedical EvidenceEmployment History
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Archuleta v. International Insurance Co.

Aurora Archuleta sustained a work-related injury and sought workers' compensation. The core legal question revolved around whether her pleadings, alleging total incapacity, could support jury issues on partial incapacity. The trial court permitted the partial incapacity issues, leading to a jury finding of partial, permanent incapacity and a judgment for Archuleta. The court of appeals initially reversed, but the Texas Supreme Court, on rehearing, reversed the appellate court's decision and affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that pleading for total incapacity sufficiently raises the issue of partial incapacity. The Supreme Court also considered and overruled other points raised by the defendant.

Workers' CompensationPartial IncapacityTotal IncapacityPleadingsSpecial IssuesInferential RebuttalNotice of InjuryAppellate ReviewJury FindingsMotion for Rehearing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hopkins v. Cornerstone America

This case involves former insurance agents, led by Joseph Hopkins, suing Cornerstone America, Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of Tennessee, and United Insurance Companies, Incorporated, for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), breach of contract, and common-law fraud and conversion. The central issue is whether the plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors under the FLSA. The Court found that most plaintiffs, except Chris Fox, were employees based on an economic reality test, considering factors like degree of control, relative investment, opportunity for profit and loss, skill and initiative, and permanency of the relationship. Consequently, the court partially granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and partially granted and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. It dismissed Chris Fox's FLSA claims due to judicial estoppel and dismissed all claims against United Insurance and the plaintiffs' abandoned fraud and conversion claims.

Fair Labor Standards ActEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorOvertime WagesRetaliationBreach of ContractJudicial EstoppelEconomic Reality TestCorporate VeilPublic Policy Violation
References
36
Case No. 13-87-479-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 1988

Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Garcia

This is a worker's compensation case where Prajedes Garcia was awarded compensation for total and permanent incapacity by a jury. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company appealed, challenging the trial court's refusal to submit a 'partial incapacity' instruction and the sufficiency of evidence for the jury's finding of permanent incapacity. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found that the appellant had waived the right to the partial incapacity instruction due to a stipulation made during the trial. Furthermore, the appellate court concluded that there was sufficient factual evidence to support the jury's finding of permanent total incapacity, despite conflicting medical testimonies. Justice Seerden dissented, arguing that the appellant did not waive the partial incapacity defense.

Worker's CompensationTotal IncapacityPermanent IncapacityJury TrialEvidentiary SufficiencyJury InstructionsPartial Incapacity DefenseWaiver of DefenseStipulationMedical Testimony
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

Juan V. Garcia sued Aetna Casualty & Surety Company for workers' compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law after being injured during his employment. Garcia appealed the court's decision, which limited him to a fifteen percent partial incapacity instead of the twenty-five percent partial incapacity found by the jury. The appellate court agreed that Garcia's pleading for total incapacity for eight weeks was broad enough to cover the jury's finding of twenty-five percent partial incapacity. Consequently, the judgment was reformed to award Garcia compensation for a twenty-five percent incapacity for eight weeks. Additionally, Garcia complained that he was not allowed to explain that he worked out of economic necessity post-accident, but the court found this exclusion harmless as similar evidence was presented.

Workmen’s Compensation LawPartial IncapacityEconomic NecessityJury FindingsJudgment ReformAppellate ReviewInjury CompensationPleading SufficiencyHarmless ErrorEmployment After Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Insurance Co. v. Archuleta

Aurora Archuleta, an employee at El Paso Auto-Truck Stop, sustained a knee injury and later a compression fracture in 1977. She filed a worker's compensation claim, pleading for total incapacity benefits. However, the jury awarded permanent partial benefits, prompting an appeal from International Insurance Company. The appellate court, led by Justice Ward, reversed the judgment, citing a lack of proper pleadings for partial incapacity by the claimant, referencing the precedent set in Select Insurance Company v. Boucher. The case was remanded for a new trial to address these procedural deficiencies as a plea for total incapacity does not automatically encompass an alternative claim for partial incapacity.

PleadingsPartial IncapacityTotal IncapacityWorker's CompensationJury VerdictReversalRemandTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewInjury Claim
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mitchell v. Houston General Insurance Co.

The claimant, James A. Mitchell, appealed a jury verdict denying further worker's compensation benefits for alleged disability, while medical expenses and temporary total disability had been awarded and paid. The defendant insurance companies, Houston General Insurance Company and Equitable General Insurance Company, had argued for partial, not total, incapacity. The core issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred by refusing to submit jury issues on partial incapacity, which the claimant had requested. The court found that there was more than a scintilla of evidence to suggest partial disability, especially considering the insurers' evidence (including motion pictures) countering the claimant's total disability claim. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the trial court erred in denying the requested issues on partial incapacity. The judgment was reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

Worker's Compensation LawPartial IncapacityTotal IncapacityJury IssuesEarning CapacityReversible ErrorAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceReversal and RemandInsurance Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burton v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

This workmen's compensation case concerns an appeal by the claimant, Mr. Burton, following a take-nothing judgment. The jury found Mr. Burton sustained total incapacity from November 1976 to June 1977 and permanent partial incapacity thereafter. Crucially, the jury also found his average weekly earning capacity during partial incapacity ($236.00) exceeded his pre-injury stipulated average weekly wage ($226.00). The Appellant argued this created an irreconcilable conflict with established precedent, particularly *Employers Reinsurance Corporation v. Holland*. The Court sustained the Appellant's point of error, agreeing that a finding of partial incapacity conflicts with a finding of greater or equal post-injury earning capacity to pre-injury wages. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case remanded.

Workmen's CompensationPartial IncapacityEarning CapacityJury Verdict ConflictAppealReversalRemandTexas LawBack InjuryLaminectomy
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. AUTOZONERS, LLC

Karen Taylor initiated an action against AutoZoners, LLC, alleging violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. The case involved cross-motions for partial summary judgment concerning the FMLA claim. Taylor, an order selector, sustained a back injury and argued her absences should be protected under FMLA due to a serious health condition. However, the court determined that Taylor failed to provide sufficient evidence of a 'serious health condition,' specifically lacking proof of sustained incapacity or a chronic condition requiring continuous treatment as defined by FMLA regulations. Consequently, the court granted AutoZoners' motion for summary judgment, denied Taylor's cross-motion, and dismissed the FMLA interference and retaliation claims, with the state law claims dismissed without prejudice.

FMLAFamily and Medical Leave ActRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ClaimSummary JudgmentBack InjuryLumbar StrainSerious Health ConditionIncapacityLight Duty
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 3,614 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