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

Home Indemnity Co. v. Pate

Home Indemnity, a worker's compensation carrier, made payments to employee Charles Riddle, who subsequently sued Allied Chemical Corporation in federal court. Home Indemnity's attempt to intervene in the federal suit to assert its subrogation lien was denied as untimely. Riddle and Allied Chemical settled without addressing Home Indemnity's claim. Consequently, Home Indemnity filed a state court suit against Riddle, Allied Chemical, attorney Gordon Pate, and his law firm, alleging conversion for disbursing funds without acknowledging the lien. Pate's motion for summary judgment, citing res judicata/collateral estoppel and good faith reliance on the federal judgment, was granted by the trial court. The appellate court reversed and remanded, ruling that Home Indemnity was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel since it was not a party to the federal judgment on the merits of its claim, and that good faith is not a defense to conversion.

Subrogation LienSummary Judgment AppealRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelConversionInsurance Carrier RightsThird-Party LiabilityTexas Civil PracticeFederal Judgment ImpactAttorney Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Associated Indemnity Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, a workmen's compensation insurer for a temporary labor contractor (Greene's Temporaries, Inc.), sued Associated Indemnity Company, the insurer for a customer (Frito-Lay Company), seeking subrogation for a compensation claim paid to an injured temporary employee. Hartford contended the loss was covered by Associated's policy as the employee was under Frito-Lay's control. The court reversed the trial court's decision in favor of Hartford, denying equitable subrogation. The appellate court found that Hartford had collected premiums for the temporary employees and was charged with knowledge of the contractual arrangement, thus preventing unjust enrichment if subrogation were granted.

Workmen's CompensationTemporary EmploymentSubrogationInsurance LawBorrowed Servant DoctrineRight of ControlEquitable RemediesUnjust EnrichmentInsurance PremiumsContractual Agreements
References
17
Case No. 10-11-00142-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2013

Dan Daniels v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America

Dan Daniels, an elevator installer for ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, sued Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, his former employer's workers' compensation carrier, after an adverse administrative decision by the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC). Daniels sought judicial review regarding the calculation of his Average Weekly Wage (AWW) and his post-injury earnings, specifically contesting the exclusion of certain payments made by ThyssenKrupp to his union for "health and other benefits" from his pre-injury AWW, and the valuation of a vehicle provided by the State of Missouri as part of his post-injury earnings. The trial court granted summary judgment for Indemnity and denied Daniels's motion for partial summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the payments to the union were not includable in AWW and that Daniels's post-injury pecuniary and nonpecuniary wages were not less than 80% of his pre-injury AWW, thus disentitling him to Supplemental Income Benefits (SIBs).

Workers' CompensationSupplemental Income BenefitsAverage Weekly WageNonpecuniary WagesSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeAdministrative DecisionEmployer PaymentsPost-Injury Earnings
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Vidal Lopez

Pacific Indemnity Insurance, a workers' compensation carrier, sued Liberty Mutual Insurance for reimbursement in district court without first exhausting administrative remedies with the Industrial Accident Board (IAB). This lawsuit stemmed from a worker's injury in 1984 and subsequent re-injury in 1988. Pacific Indemnity, the carrier for the initial injury, continued to pay benefits after the re-injury and sought reimbursement from Liberty Mutual, the subsequent carrier, which was denied. The IAB issued orders regarding payments but did not address the reimbursement claim. The district court granted summary judgment for Liberty Mutual, a decision upheld on appeal because Pacific Indemnity failed to obtain an IAB ruling on the reimbursement issue before filing suit, thereby lacking jurisdiction in district court. The failure to exhaust administrative remedies bars the suit as a matter of law.

Administrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance ReimbursementIndustrial Accident BoardJurisdictionAppellate ReviewCarrier DisputeRepetitious TraumaTexas Workers' Compensation Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1981

France v. American Indemnity Co.

James Craig France sued American Indemnity Company for medical expenses under a worker's compensation settlement after suffering a shoulder dislocation. Despite a compromise agreement to cover future expenses from a 1975 injury, American Indemnity refused payment for surgery following a later dislocation in 1977, attributing it to a new injury. A jury found the expenses stemmed from the 1975 injury. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' take-nothing judgment, awarding France $2,192.10 for medical expenses and remanding the issue of attorney's fees for further proceedings, finding a breach of the settlement agreement.

Worker's CompensationBreach of ContractCompromise Settlement AgreementMedical ExpensesShoulder InjuryAffirmative DefensesAttorney's FeesPresentment of ClaimJury FindingsAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paradissis v. Royal Indemnity Company

Chris Paradissis, an employee, suffered a back injury and was deemed permanently disabled, with Royal Indemnity Company, his employer's workmen's compensation carrier, responsible for payments and medical care. Paradissis later sued Royal Indemnity for damages, alleging negligent refusal to provide necessary medical and psychiatric services, claiming this exacerbated his condition. The suit was dismissed by the trial court, a decision affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. The Supreme Court of Texas further affirmed the dismissal, holding that claims of negligence against a workmen's compensation carrier for medical services fall exclusively under the state's workmen's compensation laws. Therefore, the District Court lacked jurisdiction as Paradissis had not exhausted his administrative remedies through the Industrial Accident Board, which provides the sole avenue for such disputes.

Workmen's CompensationPersonal InjuryNegligenceJurisdictionExclusive RemedyIndustrial Accident BoardMedical ServicesPsychoneurosisCommon Law TortInsurance Carrier Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas General Indemnity Co. v. Jones

This case concerns an appeal by Texas General Indemnity Company, an intervenor in a third-party personal injury suit, against a trial court order mandating it to pay one-third of its subrogation recovery as attorney's fees. The underlying action saw Lawrence D. Jones and his wife obtain a $750,000 judgment, with Texas General Indemnity Company holding a $54,140.46 subrogation interest as the worker's compensation carrier. The appellant contended that a pre-existing stipulation waived any claim for attorney's fees, entitling it to its full recovery. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, interpreting the stipulation as only waiving the intervenor's own claim for fees and not addressing the payment of the claimants' attorneys' fees under Article 8307, section 6a, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. Therefore, the trial court's apportionment of attorney's fees from the intervenor's recovery was deemed proper.

Attorney's feesSubrogationWorkers' CompensationInterventionStipulationThird-party lawsuitPersonal injuryAppellate reviewTexas lawStatutory interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayers v. Associated Indemnity Corp.

The plaintiff, Mayers, an employee of Panhandle Steel Products Company, sustained a work-related injury in October 1936, leading to the total loss of use of his left leg by November 1937. He initiated a worker's compensation claim in state court, which was then removed to a federal district court. A motion to remand was filed, contending that the compensation due would be less than $3,000 if the payment period started from the date of disability. However, the court applied the Texas Supreme Court's interpretation from Texas Employers Insurance Association v. Guidry, ruling that the compensation period begins from the original injury date. This calculation resulted in a compensation amount exceeding $3,000, thus maintaining federal jurisdiction and leading to the overruling of the motion to remand.

Worker's CompensationInjury CompensationFederal Court JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTexas LawDate of InjuryDate of DisabilityMotion to RemandEmployee RightsEmployer Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peeples v. Home Indemnity Co.

Billy R. Peeples, an injured worker, appealed a trial court's decision regarding psychiatric treatment expenses for a knee injury sustained while employed by Friedrich Refrigeration. Peeples, the claimant, sought compensation from Home Indemnity Company, the carrier. The trial jury awarded workers' compensation but denied payment for psychiatric treatment, finding it was not reasonably required as a result of the leg injury. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in excluding testimony from Dr. George Schlagenhauf, the treating psychiatrist, concerning the diagnosis and necessity of the treatment. Furthermore, the jury's finding against the necessity of psychiatric care was deemed against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, as Dr. Schlagenhauf's testimony on necessity was uncontradicted. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationPsychiatric TreatmentMedical ExpensesAdmissibility of EvidenceSufficiency of EvidenceKnee InjuryDepressionMedical NecessityAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. ADJ4541361 (AHM 0136152)
Regular
Nov 24, 2010

CHRIS FAIRFIELD vs. GUITAR CENTER, ZURICH

This case concerns the commencement date for calculating temporary disability indemnity limits under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). The Appeals Board reversed a prior award, holding that the two-year limit for temporary disability payments began on March 5, 2006, when the applicant first received such payments. This decision was based on a stipulation that confirmed this initial payment, overriding the WCJ's calculation based on a later date. Consequently, the applicant's entitlement to temporary total disability indemnity for the period of April 18, 2008, to April 23, 2009, was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary Total Disability (TTD)Labor Code Section 4656Commencement of Temporary DisabilityAggregate Disability PaymentsTwo-Year LimitationStipulationFindings Award and Order (F&A)Agreed Medical Evaluation (AME)
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,433 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