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

Midori Hosokawa v. Screen Actors Guild-American, Federation of Television & Radio

Plaintiff Midori Hosokawa, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit against Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) and its New York Local. She alleged breaches of SAG-AFTRA's duty of fair representation and its constitution, stemming from the Union's refusal to pursue her "upgrade" claims for compensation as a principal performer in a Verizon Droid commercial. SAG-AFTRA repeatedly informed Hosokawa that her claims were closed and warned her about persistent contact. Hosokawa's prior unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB were dismissed. The District Court granted SAG-AFTRA's motion to dismiss, ruling that the duty of fair representation claims were time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations, and the breach of constitution claims were either time-barred or lacked evidence of an actual breach.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingUnion ConstitutionBreach of ContractPro Se PlaintiffSAG-AFTRAFederal Court
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nabors Well Services, Ltd. v. Romero

The Texas Supreme Court overruled its long-standing precedent that prohibited the admissibility of seat belt evidence in car accident cases. This decision, based on changes from contributory negligence to proportionate responsibility and modern societal norms regarding seat belt use, allows relevant evidence of seat belt use or non-use to be considered for apportioning responsibility for injuries, even if it did not cause the accident itself. The Court emphasized that the proportionate responsibility statute (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 33.003(a), 33.011(4)) requires fact-finders to consider all conduct contributing to harm, including a plaintiff's pre-occurrence, injury-causing actions. The case was remanded to the court of appeals for further proceedings consistent with this new opinion, particularly regarding the exclusion of expert testimony on injury causation. This landmark decision aligns Texas tort law with a common-sense approach to personal injury liability.

seat belt defensecomparative faultproportionate responsibilitytort lawevidence admissibilityinjury causationnegligencecivil procedurejudicial precedentstatutory interpretation
References
31
Case No. ADJ13768010
Regular
May 06, 2025

ROBERT NICHOLS vs. COMCAST, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Robert Nichols, the applicant, sustained injuries while employed by Comcast. A petition for reconsideration was filed regarding whether the medical treatment received by the applicant qualified as pre-admission or emergency services, and the defendant's alleged failure to conduct a second bill review. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, concurring with the WCJ's report that the lien claimant did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the treatment fell under pre-admission or emergency status. The Board also noted that the issue concerning the defendant's non-response to the second bill review was not a contested matter at the trial.

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONLABOR CODE SECTION 5909ELECTRONIC ADJUDICATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (EAMS)TRANSMISSION DATEREPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONLIEN CLAIMANTPRETREATMENT SERVICESEMERGENCY SERVICESMEDICARE PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT SYSTEMSECOND BILL REVIEW
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange

Plaintiff Ralph Evans sought workers' compensation benefits for total and permanent incapacity following a fall on October 31, 1974, while employed at Big Texan Steak Ranch in Lubbock, Texas. The defendant insurer contended that any incapacity was due to a pre-existing injury from May 1974. The jury found no incapacity resulted from the October 1974 injury and awarded $297.00 for medical care. Evans appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence, a sole cause instruction, a judicial admonition, and the admission of evidence concerning a prior compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's findings, the sole cause instruction, and the admissibility of the prior claim as an admission.

Workers' CompensationFall InjuryPre-existing ConditionIncapacity BenefitsJury FindingsSole Cause InstructionMedical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePrior ClaimAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. B-7583
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 1978

Hurtado v. TEXAS EMP. INS. ASS'N

Manuel R. Hurtado, seeking Workers' Compensation benefits for total incapacity, appealed a "take nothing" judgment, which had been affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. The central issue was the trial court's admission of Hurtado's entire 280-page medical record into evidence, despite objections that it contained inadmissible hearsay, opinions, and conclusional matters. The Supreme Court of Texas found this admission to be an abuse of discretion, as the burden was improperly placed on the objecting party to segregate admissible from inadmissible portions. The Court ruled that this evidentiary error was harmful, given that the voluminous records, detailing pre-existing conditions like diabetes and arthritis, could have unduly influenced the jury's decision on causation. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the case for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationMedical Records AdmissibilityHearsay EvidenceOpinion EvidenceTrial ProcedureAppellate ReviewCausation in Injury CasesPre-existing ConditionsJury InstructionsHarmless Error Rule
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Standard Insurance Co. v. Gayton

National Standard Insurance Company appealed a judgment awarding workers’ compensation benefits to Chris Gayton. The central issue was the admissibility of medical records containing diagnoses and opinions from treating physicians (Dr. A.R. Fernandez, Dr. Wainscott, and Dr. Corbin) when Gayton had not listed them as expert witnesses in discovery interrogatories. National Standard argued for exclusion based on Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 166b and 215, which require designation of expert witnesses. The court, however, distinguished between testifying experts and nontestifying medical experts whose opinions are part of authenticated medical records. It held that the discovery rules for testifying experts do not preclude the admission of such medical records. Consequently, the judgment awarding benefits to Gayton was affirmed.

Discovery ProceduresExpert TestimonyMedical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticePersonal Injury LitigationDisability BenefitsTreating Physician's RecordsHearsay Rule Exception
References
10
Case No. ADJ10110995 (MF)
Regular
Jun 20, 2019

Preston Lee Brown Scott vs. City of Los Angeles

Applicant Preston Lee Brown Scott, previously declared a vexatious litigant, filed multiple documents seeking relief without obtaining the required pre-filing approval. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed these filings and found no significant change in circumstances justifying reconsideration of prior rulings. Consequently, the Board issued an order stating that the submitted documents are not accepted for filing. This order reaffirms the pre-filing requirements for vexatious litigants absent representation by a licensed attorney.

Vexatious LitigantPre-Filing OrderAppeals Board Rule 10782In Pro PerApplication for AdjudicationDeclaration of ReadinessPleadingsPetitionLicensed AttorneyChange in Circumstances
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maliqi v. 17 East 89th Street Tenants, Inc.

The court addresses motions in limine concerning the admissibility of evidence related to the plaintiff's immigration status, future lost wages, and medical expenses in a workplace injury case. The plaintiff, an undocumented political asylum seeker named Maliqi, was injured while working. The court ruled that while the plaintiff's immigration status is relevant for the jury to consider potential economic realities if he is deported, it cannot be used to argue that his status prohibits awards for future lost wages or medical expenses. Furthermore, the defendant is precluded from asserting that the plaintiff was working illegally at the time of the accident. The court also permitted expert testimony from an economist regarding future damages but denied the admission of testimony from the plaintiff's immigration counsel as an expert.

Workplace InjuryUndocumented WorkerPolitical AsylumImmigration StatusLost WagesMedical ExpensesEvidence AdmissibilityMotions in LimineExpert TestimonyEconomic Damages
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayfield v. Employers Reinsurance Corp.

Calvin A. Mayfield claimed a July 24, 1973, injury while working for Texas Tubular Products, which was appealed by their insurer, Employers Reinsurance Corporation. The case centered on the admissibility of evidence regarding Mayfield's prior injuries and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's finding that he was not injured on the date in question. Mayfield's treating physician linked his condition to the 1973 injury, while the defense introduced evidence of other injuries and testimony suggesting no injury occurred on July 24, 1973. The jury found Mayfield was not injured, leading to a take-nothing judgment, which the appellate court affirmed, finding no error in the admission of evidence or the jury's finding.

Workmen's CompensationAdmissibility of EvidenceOther InjuriesSole Producing CauseJury FindingSufficiency of EvidencePrior ClaimsSettlementsLump Sum RecoveryHardship
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gayal Realty Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 25

The case involves plaintiffs Dans, a general contractor, and G-ayal, a property owner, who sought an injunction against defendant Local #25 I. B. E. W. to halt picketing at a construction site. The picketing, which commenced on August 5, 1963, alleged that electricians were not working under the union's standard wages and conditions, resulting in a significant work stoppage. The defendant moved for dismissal, citing deficiencies in the complaint, non-compliance with the Civil Practice Act, and federal pre-emption under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that the dispute was "arguably subject" to the NLRB's jurisdiction, thereby pre-empting state judicial action, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' arguments that their businesses did not impact interstate commerce. Ultimately, the plaintiffs were granted permission to withdraw their motion and discontinue the action without prejudice, and the previously issued stay on picketing was vacated.

InjunctionLabor DisputeFederal PreemptionNLRB JurisdictionPicketingCivil Practice ActUnion ActivityInterstate CommerceWithdrawal of MotionMootness
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,698 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