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

Texas General Indemnity Co. v. Moreno

The case concerns a worker's compensation claim by Miguel S. Moreno against his employer, Louisiana Pacific Corporation, following a work-related injury that resulted in total and permanent disability. The appellant (employer/insurer) appealed the jury's award, raising several points of error. While the appellate court affirmed the jury's findings on disability and rejected claims regarding juror challenges and closing arguments due to procedural issues or harmless error, it sustained the appellant's objection concerning the trial court's inadequate definition of "partial incapacity" and failure to define "earning capacity" in the jury instructions. Consequently, the judgment awarding compensation to Moreno was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with a proper definition of partial incapacity.

Worker's CompensationDisabilityJury TrialAppellate ReviewPoints of ErrorEvidence SufficiencyJuror ChallengesVoir DireClosing ArgumentsInflammatory Statements
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Select Insurance Co. v. Boucher

Select Insurance Co. appealed a jury verdict awarding Thomas Earl Boucher workmen's compensation for six and three-fourths years of total incapacity. The defendant contended that the plaintiff suffered only partial disability and requested related issues and instructions, which the trial court refused. The appellate court affirmed this refusal, noting that partial incapacity issues in this context were inferential rebuttal issues, and the requested definition was inadequate. Furthermore, the court found Dr. Belz's psychiatric testimony, based on both personal examination and hearsay, admissible as he was a treating physician. The appellate court concluded that the jury's finding of total incapacity was supported by sufficient evidence, particularly the medical testimony regarding the plaintiff's mental condition following his injury.

Workmen's Compensation AppealTotal IncapacityPartial Incapacity DefenseRule 277 T.R.C.P.Inferential Rebuttal IssuesExpert Witness TestimonyHearsay EvidencePsychiatric EvaluationMental DisabilityEarning Capacity Reduction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2013

Prewitt v. Continental Automotive

The case concerns Plaintiff Larry W. Prewitt, Sr.'s employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Defendant Continental Automotive. The court granted Defendant's motion for partial dismissal, ruling that claims stemming from Plaintiff's first two EEOC charges were time-barred. Plaintiff's claims for racial discrimination were dismissed without prejudice due to a lack of sufficient factual allegations. However, the court found Plaintiff's retaliation claims, related to filing EEOC charges, were adequately pleaded and allowed them to proceed. Defendant's motion for a more definite statement was denied as moot.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissMotion for More Definite StatementEEOC ChargesTime-Barred ClaimsPleading StandardsFederal Civil ProcedureTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act
References
74
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Traders & General Ins. Co. v. Wright

A. N. Wright sued Traders & General Insurance Company under Texas's Workmen’s Compensation Law for injuries sustained from poisonous gas exposure, leading to total and permanent disability and the activation of tuberculosis. The jury found in favor of Wright, awarding him a lump sum. Traders & General Insurance Company appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in its definition of "partial incapacity" and, critically, in conditionally submitting issues related to partial and temporary incapacity, thereby denying them an affirmative defense. The appellate court agreed with the appellant, also noting that medical testimony from Dr. Parmley, based on subjective symptoms gathered for litigation rather than treatment, was inadmissible. Consequently, the judgment of the district court was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationTotal DisabilityPartial IncapacityConditional SubmissionAffirmative DefensesMedical TestimonySubjective SymptomsReversible ErrorTexas LawInsurance Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chapa v. United States Fire Insurance Co.

Helen Chapa initiated a worker's compensation suit against Memorial Medical Center's insurer, U.S. Fire, following a fall at work on April 3, 1978, which she claimed resulted in neck, back, and knee injuries. The jury found a 15% permanent loss of use of her right knee but concluded that she had not suffered total or partial general incapacity and had already received benefits exceeding the awarded compensation, leading to a "take-nothing" judgment. On appeal, Chapa challenged the jury instructions, the admission of Dr. Kennedy's testimony, and the weight of evidence regarding general and partial incapacity, as well as the 15% knee disability finding. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that any errors were not harmful and that the jury's findings were supported by sufficient evidence, including her return to work and medical opinions. The court also rejected her claim for reimbursement of arthritis treatment costs, as its connection to the injury was not definitively established.

Workplace InjurySlip and FallKnee InjuryBack StrainNeck StrainMedical TestimonyHearsay EvidenceJury FindingsPartial IncapacityFunctional Disability
References
4
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
Showing 1-10 of 4,239 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