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

Benefit Trust Life Insurance Co. v. Littles

Leslie Littles and the City of Victoria sued Benefit Trust Life Insurance Company for bad faith in handling a medical claim for Littles, an employee of the City. Littles was severely burned, and Benefit Trust, the administrator of the City's self-funded health plan, refused to pay a substantial portion of his medical bills, citing 'prevailing fee' limitations. The jury found Benefit Trust liable under the Texas Insurance Code and for breach of contract, awarding actual damages, statutory damages, and attorney fees to both Littles and the City. On appeal, the court affirmed Littles' standing as a third-party beneficiary and upheld the jury's findings on unfair practices and bad faith. However, the appellate court ruled that prejudgment interest could not be trebled under the Insurance Code, necessitating a modification of the damage and attorney fee awards. Ultimately, the motions for rehearing were denied, and the judgment was affirmed in all other respects with modified financial awards.

Insurance Bad FaithTexas Insurance CodeThird-Party BeneficiaryDeceptive Trade Practices ActAttorney FeesPrejudgment InterestPunitive DamagesActual DamagesContract BreachMedical Claims
References
50
Case No. 14-14-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

Vicki Ward v. Lamar University, Texas State University System and James Simmons

This document is the appellant Vicki Ward's response to the appellees' motion for rehearing or, in the alternative, rehearing en banc. Ward agrees that the primary constitutional ground for her appeal concerning the declaratory judgment action was the improper dismissal of her free speech claim under the Texas Constitution. She contends that her claim for attorneys' fees, permitted under the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act, ensures her declaratory judgment action is not moot. Ward also argues that the appellees did not adequately address pertinent case law regarding her whistleblower claim and failed to provide any basis for en banc review. Consequently, Ward requests that the appellees' motion for rehearing be denied, with a minor concession for the Court to reconsider certain constitutional claims if deemed necessary.

Declaratory Judgment ActAttorneys' FeesMootness DoctrineFree Speech ClaimWhistleblower ClaimAppellate ProcedureMotion for RehearingEn Banc ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployment Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas State Board of Pharmacy v. Witcher

The Board filed a motion for rehearing challenging the court's original opinion regarding ad hoc rulemaking. The Board argued that its reciprocal sanction policy was not an improperly adopted rule and that prior case law supported its discretion. The court rejected these arguments, reaffirming that ad hoc rulemaking is permissible only in narrow, exceptional circumstances, which the Board failed to demonstrate. The court found that the Board's reciprocal-sanction policy was a rule that was not promulgated under the APA's mandatory rulemaking procedures, thus lacking the force of law. Consequently, the court overruled the Board's motion for rehearing and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Ad hoc rulemakingAdministrative Procedure ActAgency discretionReciprocal sanction policyPharmacist licensingJudicial reviewStatutory interpretationNotice-and-comment proceduresDue processSovereign immunity
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pederson v. Apple Corrugated Packaging, Inc.

The plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing, referencing TEX.REV.CIV.STAT. ANN. art. 9104, § 11. They argued that this statute limited workers' compensation coverage solely to the leasing company, Staff Benefits, and not to the client company, referred to as the Appellee. However, the court pointed out that Article 9104 became effective after the date of the injury, rendering it inapplicable to the current case, which occurred on January 28, 1991. Furthermore, the court highlighted that Section 11(c) of Article 9104 explicitly defines both the licensee (leasing company) and its client company as co-employers for workers' compensation purposes. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for rehearing was overruled.

Workers' Compensation CoverageStaff Leasing ServicesCo-employmentStatutory InterpretationMotion for RehearingRetroactive Application of LawWorkers' Compensation Insurance
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Witty v. American General Capital Distributors, Inc.

The case involves motions for rehearing where the defendant argued that the Workers’ Compensation Act bars Mrs. Witty's common-law action for emotional distress. The court distinguished a prior case, *Bailey v. American General Insurance Co.*, and held that the Act does not prevent Mrs. Witty from claiming damages for emotional distress related to the injury of her baby, although it bars claims for her own injuries. A point of disagreement among the judges was whether *Yandell v. Delgado* precludes Mrs. Witty's damages claim on behalf of her unborn child for prenatal pain and suffering and related expenses. Ultimately, all motions for rehearing filed by both the plaintiff and the defendant were overruled.

Workers' Compensation ActEmotional DistressWrongful DeathPrenatal InjuryCommon-Law ActionMotion for RehearingInjury of BabyEmployee SafetyMental AnguishStatutory Damages
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oswald v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

The insurance carrier filed a motion for rehearing, arguing that Oswald's pre-existing total disability was the sole cause of any total incapacity, not the work-related injury. The court noted that injury was defined for the jury to include the excitement, acceleration, or aggravation of any pre-existing condition, and producing cause included conditions acting independently or with others. Medical experts, Dr. Zum Brunnen and Dr. Knight, testified that the on-the-job injury caused or exacerbated Oswald's spondylolisthesis, leading to incapacity, including a period of total disability. The court found that the evidence negated the carrier's argument that prior injuries were the sole cause and that Oswald was entitled to compensation for total disability for a period, even with prior contributing causes. The motion for rehearing was ultimately overruled.

Workers' Compensation LawMotion for RehearingTotal DisabilityPartial IncapacityProducing CauseSpondylolisthesisMedical Expert TestimonyPre-existing ConditionOn-the-job InjuryJury Findings
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Department of Highways & Public Transportation v. Moseley

The court issued a supplemental opinion on motions for rehearing concerning an earlier decision from August 31, 1987. Both the Department and Moseley filed timely motions. The Department argued for a higher proportionate share of prejudgment interest, citing *Cavnar v. Quality Control Parking, Inc.*, while Moseley contested the interpretation of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307, § 6a regarding a compensation carrier's recovery of prejudgment interest. The court found no merit in either motion. It clarified that the accrual date for prejudgment interest established in *Cavnar* for personal injury cases, due to uncertain damages, does not apply to subrogation cases where a carrier's damages (benefits paid) are certain. Consequently, both motions for rehearing were overruled.

Prejudgment InterestWorkers' Compensation ActSubrogationMotion for RehearingStatutory InterpretationDamagesAppellate ProcedureTexas LawCompensation CarrierInjured Worker
References
1
Case No. 01-15-00408-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

in Re Joseph Andre Davis

Joseph Andre Davis, the Appellant, filed a motion for clarification, rehearing, and rehearing en banc with the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. The motion challenges a prior per curiam affirmance concerning a case involving Floyd D. Lopez (Appellee). Davis argues that the court misapprehended critical facts and law, particularly regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the standing of the maternal grandparents for managing conservatorship, and the alleged violation of his fundamental parental rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He requests a written opinion and certification of questions to the Texas Supreme Court, emphasizing the significant precedential implications of the court's decision on parental liberty interests and the uniformity of legal precedents.

Appellate ProcedureMotion for RehearingRehearing En BancPer Curiam AffirmanceParental RightsGrandparent ConservatorshipSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingDue ProcessFourteenth Amendment
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crites v. Pietila

This opinion addresses motions for rehearing filed by the Appellees, which are ultimately overruled. The court primarily delves into the interpretation of the Texas Supreme Court's ruling in Witty v. American General Capital Distributors, Inc., particularly concerning the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Act to claims of emotional distress resulting from the loss of a fetus. It clarifies that while the Act bars such claims for employees, it does not extend to injuries sustained by a third person or a fetus. Furthermore, the opinion references Wheeler v. Yettie Kersting Memorial Hospital, highlighting the recognition of a common law cause of action for a mother's emotional damages due to a stillborn child. The decision concludes with the denial of all rehearing motions.

Motion for RehearingWorkers' Compensation ActEmotional Distress ClaimsFetal DeathCommon Law DamagesStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate ReviewPrecedent AnalysisOverruling Motions
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perma Stone Co. v. Teakell

This opinion addresses a motion for rehearing, focusing on the apportionment of fault in workers' compensation cases where an injured employee sues third-party subcontractors. The court explicitly declines to follow the precedent set in *Texas Industries, Inc. v. Lucas*, which allowed trial courts to disregard jury findings on an employer's negligence (when the employer is immune due to workers' compensation benefits) and reassign that fault percentage to the remaining defendants. The present court argues that such a practice leads to inequitable outcomes, potentially making defendants liable for more than their actual fault and allowing plaintiffs to recover twice. It asserts that an employer protected by workers' compensation should be treated similarly to a settling tortfeasor. Consequently, the appellee's motion for rehearing is overruled.

Workers' Compensation LawComparative Negligence PrinciplesEmployer ImmunityThird-Party LiabilityRehearing MotionJudicial PrecedentApportionment of FaultTexas Civil PracticeContribution and Indemnity IssuesSubcontractor Negligence
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 13,548 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