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

Delcourt v. Silverman

Karen Ann Delcourt appealed summary judgments granted in favor of Dr. Edward Silverman, Ph.D., a court-appointed psychologist, and Norma Levine Trusch, a court-appointed guardian ad litem. Delcourt sued them alleging negligence, fraud, civil conspiracy, and intentional infliction of severe mental distress, stemming from a child custody dispute. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Silverman and Trusch were entitled to absolute derived judicial immunity because they acted as functionaries or arms of the court within the scope of their court appointments. The court also rejected Delcourt's procedural arguments and claims that absolute immunity does not protect against constitutional violations or conspiracy.

Judicial ImmunityAbsolute ImmunityDerived ImmunityGuardian Ad LitemCourt-Appointed PsychologistChild Custody DisputeSummary Judgment AppealFamily LawQuasi-Judicial FunctionParental Rights
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1988

Claim of Baker v. Three Village Central School District

The employer appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found that the claimant had a causally related disability after a head injury sustained on September 15, 1982. The employer contested the finding of disability subsequent to November 1, 1982, arguing that a psychologist's testimony should not have been considered on the issue of causal relationship because the psychologist was not a physician. The Board, however, based its decision on a comprehensive review of the record, including reports and testimony from a psychiatrist, as well as the testimony of the claimant and the psychologist. The court affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding ample expert medical evidence supporting the disability and concluding that the psychologist's testimony was relevant to the length of the disability. The court found no irrationality in the Board's conclusion and no basis to disturb the decision.

Workers' CompensationHead InjuryDisabilityCausal RelationshipPsychiatric EvaluationNeuropsychologyExpert TestimonyAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMedical Evidence
References
0
Case No. ADJ3103905
Regular
Oct 28, 2011

JOSE PENALOZA VALDEZ vs. MANUEL AVILA, TRANSGUARD INSURANCE, Administered By FRYE CLAIMS CONSULTATION

This case concerns an applicant awarded 68% permanent disability, including a significant portion for psyche injury, based on a psychologist's report. The defendant appeals, arguing the psychologist's report was improperly admitted and they were denied the opportunity for rebuttal. The Appeals Board rescinded the award, finding that while the report was admissible, the defendant should have been allowed to obtain a rebuttal report, especially since the psychologist was not the primary treating physician. The case is returned for further proceedings to develop the record regarding the psyche injury and disability claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryPermanent DisabilityMedical Report AdmissibilityQualified Medical EvaluatorAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement Conference
References
0
Case No. 2-89-133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1990

McCoy v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

Margaret McCoy, an employee, sustained an injury on her employer's premises while attempting to pick up her paycheck before her scheduled shift. She had several alternative methods for receiving her pay. The trial court determined that McCoy was not acting within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the injury. On appeal, McCoy argued that the evidence established as a matter of law that her injury occurred within the course and scope of her employment. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that McCoy's actions were not in furtherance of her employer's business. A dissenting opinion argued that McCoy should have been considered within the course and scope of her employment as a matter of law.

Worker's CompensationCourse and Scope of EmploymentPaycheck CollectionPremises LiabilityEmployer AccommodationAppealAffirmationDissenting OpinionTexas LawSummary Judgment
References
5
Case No. No. 10-04-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2005

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. William Ira Mathison

William Ira Mathison was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel found he was not in the course and scope of his employment. A jury determined that Mathison was in the course and scope of his employment, a finding appealed by Pacific Employers Insurance Company. The appeal argued that the evidence supporting the jury's finding was legally and factually insufficient. The court, however, noted Mathison’s supervisor considered the trip to repair a work laptop to be in furtherance of the employer’s business. The court found that Mathison was impliedly directed by his employer, thus acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Worker's CompensationCourse of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyTexas Labor CodeSpecial Mission ExceptionEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. United States

Plaintiff Robert Garcia filed a lawsuit against a special agent of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) after a car accident. The agent was on official duty in Austin, driving a government vehicle, but became intoxicated and caused the collision. The United States was later substituted as the defendant, asserting the agent was acting within the scope of his employment. The plaintiff sought to avoid the application of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) by arguing the agent was not within the scope of employment. The Court found that the EPA agent was acting within the scope of his employment under both general common law of agency and Texas law, denying the plaintiff's motion to remand. The case was ultimately dismissed because the plaintiff failed to pursue the required administrative remedies under the FTCA.

Federal Tort Claims ActWestfall ActScope of EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorGovernment EmployeeIntoxicationAutomobile AccidentEnvironmental Protection AgencyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Remand
References
23
Case No. 561 S.W.3d 131
Regular Panel Decision

Steven Painter Tonya Wright, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Earl A. Wright, III, Virginia Weaver, Individually and as Next Friend of A.A.C., a Minor And Tabitha R. Rosello, Individually and as Representative of the Estate of Albert Carillo v. Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd.

This negligence case addresses the vicarious liability of Amerimex Drilling I, Ltd. for a motor-vehicle accident involving its employee, J.C. Burchett, while transporting coworkers. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed whether Burchett was acting within the course and scope of his employment, despite being off the clock, due to a contractual bonus for this specific task. Reversing lower court judgments, the Court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Burchett's employment status and the scope of his duties at the time of the accident. The decision clarifies the two-step vicarious liability analysis, distinguishing between overall employer control for employment status and objective assessment for course and scope, and recognizing exceptions to the coming-and-going rule.

Vicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCourse and Scope of EmploymentComing and Going RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSummary JudgmentNegligenceWorkers' Compensation
References
44
Case No. 01-22-00444-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2023

Alief Independent School District v. Anthony Velazquez

Anthony Velazquez was severely injured when struck by a car driven by Chinyere Iheagwam, a former employee of Alief Independent School District (AISD). Velazquez sued AISD for negligence and gross negligence, alleging Iheagwam was acting within the scope of her employment under the Texas Tort Claims Act. AISD filed a Plea to the Jurisdiction, asserting governmental immunity because Iheagwam was outside her employment scope at the time of the accident. The trial court denied AISD's plea. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that Iheagwam was not acting within the scope of her employment as her shift had ended, she was driving her personal car for a personal errand, and AISD did not direct her actions. Consequently, the court rendered judgment dismissing Velazquez's claims against AISD for lack of jurisdiction.

Governmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActScope of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentNegligenceGross NegligencePlea to the JurisdictionAppellate ReviewPublic School DistrictEmployee Misconduct
References
33
Case No. 89-CV-0201
Regular Panel Decision

Baggio v. Lombardi

Plaintiffs Michael Baggio and Joanna Hunt initiated a lawsuit for defamation and prima facie tort against several individual employees of the U.S. Postal Service. The case was removed to federal court when the Attorney General certified that the individual defendants were acting within the scope of their employment, leading to the United States being substituted as the sole defendant. The U.S. government then moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for such claims. Plaintiffs contested the substitution and moved for remand to state court, arguing the defendants acted outside their employment scope. The District Court denied the motion to dismiss, determining that it has a duty to judicially review the scope of employment issue and requiring an evidentiary hearing to resolve the factual dispute.

DefamationPrima Facie TortFederal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityScope of EmploymentMotion to DismissEvidentiary HearingUnited States Postal ServiceFederal Employees Liability ReformTort Compensation Act
References
14
Case No. 2015-03-0364
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2015

White, Melinda v. Caris Healthcare

Melinda Y. White, an employee of Caris Healthcare, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing after a July 2, 2015 work-related automobile accident, seeking medical benefits for an alleged mental injury. The central legal issue was whether Ms. White was entitled to a panel of psychologists for an evaluation of her mental injury. Despite a physician's initial opinion that there was no mental injury, the Court found this opinion contradictory to medical records and Ms. White's credible testimony. The Court concluded that Ms. White presented sufficient evidence of a mental injury arising from the accident, thus entitling her to a panel of psychologists. The order mandates Caris Healthcare or its carrier to provide medical treatment, including a panel of psychologists, but defers a determination on temporary total disability benefits.

Workers' CompensationMental InjuryAutomobile AccidentExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsPsychological EvaluationCausationRebuttalTreating PhysicianCredibility
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,315 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