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. ADJ3156337 (FRE 0209931) ADJ4199467 (FRE 0209932)
Regular
Nov 20, 2008

FRANK FLORES vs. NICKEL'S PAYLESS STORES, WAUSAU INSURANCE COMPANIES, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN COMMERCIAL CLAIMS ADMINSITRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an award for a 1999 right foot and ankle injury, specifically addressing the defendant's claims of error in permanent disability calculation without apportionment and the exclusion of medical evidence. The Board intends to admit the Agreed Medical Evaluator's reports into evidence, which the WCJ had previously excluded. This decision will allow the Board to review all relevant medical evidence before making a final determination on apportionment and the applicant's claimed injuries.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationAmended Findings Award and OrderMinutes of Hearing
References
0
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

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. ADJ1856849
Regular
Aug 21, 2014

ROGELIO MERLOS vs. AJ SLENDERS DAIRY, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) notice indicates they are reconsidering a prior ruling that excluded defendant's exhibits A through M as irrelevant. The WCAB believes these exhibits may be relevant to the issues presented at trial. Absent timely written objection demonstrating good cause, these exhibits will be admitted into evidence. This decision will inform the final determination on the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationExhibits A through MWCJNotice of Intention to Admit EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeGood CauseWritten ObjectionDemonstration of Good CauseService of Notice
References
0
Case No. ADJ7790883
Regular
Nov 01, 2012

MACARIO JAIMES vs. FS PRECISION TECH, TRAVELERS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, PACIFIC COMPENSATION, HOME ASSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to obtain a hearing transcript and allow the defendant, Travelers Insurance, to submit correspondence. This correspondence, including a representation letter from applicant's attorney, is relevant to the presumed compensability of the applicant's industrial injury claim under Labor Code section 5402. The Board now intends to admit these documents into evidence unless a written objection with good cause is filed within 10 days. All future communications regarding this case must be submitted in writing to the Board's Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMacario JaimesFS Precision TechTravelersState Compensation Insurance FundPacific CompensationHome AssuranceChartisLabor Code section 5402presumption of compensability
References
0
Case No. 14-02-00289-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2003

Burton, Kevin v. State

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation where Kevin Burton challenged the trial court's decision. Burton was on probation for possession of a controlled substance and faced revocation for failing to comply with terms, including paying fines and performing community service. The appellant argued insufficient evidence for the violations and improper admission of extraneous offense evidence. The appellate court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's discretion in admitting evidence during the punishment phase. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the probation violations and that the extraneous offense evidence was relevant for assessing punishment.

Probation RevocationSufficiency of EvidenceCommunity Service ViolationFailure to Pay FinesExtraneous OffensesAdmissibility of EvidencePunishment HearingAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionControlled Substance Possession
References
15
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

Apresa v. Montfort Insurance Co.

Justice Larsen dissents, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the plaintiff the opportunity to reopen evidence for a "simple, technical point essential to his case." The dissent highlights the second prong of the standard for reopening evidence under Tex.R.Civ.P. 270, emphasizing that discretion should be liberally exercised to fully develop a case in the interest of justice. Justice Larsen applies the four factors from Hill v. Melton: decisiveness, no undue delay, prevention of injustice, and diligence. The dissent concludes that the proffered testimony was decisive, its reception would not cause undue delay, and refusing it resulted in injustice, particularly in a workers' compensation case where laws should be liberally construed. The dissent also argues that the majority misapplies the diligence requirement, which should apply after a party rests and closes its case, not during the case-in-chief, especially when evidence had not yet been closed.

Appellate ProcedureReopening EvidenceTrial Court DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionInterest of JusticeDiligence RequirementWorkers' Compensation LawTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureDissenting OpinionManifest Injustice
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyd v. Perales

The petitioner sought to expunge a 1976 child abuse report from the State Central Register, which alleged that her children were left bound and unsupervised, arguing it was irrelevant to her current child care employment. This challenge was initiated via a CPLR article 78 petition and transferred to the Appellate Division. An Administrative Law Judge had previously expunged two later reports but maintained the 1976 report. The court confirmed the respondents' determination, finding substantial evidence supported the ALJ's conclusion that the petitioner's serious lack of judgment in 1976 remained relevant to child care. Furthermore, the court dismissed the petitioner's due process argument as it was raised for the first time on appeal.

Child Abuse ReportState Central RegisterExpungementChild Care EmploymentAdministrative Law JudgeDue ProcessCPLR Article 78Social Services LawAppellate ReviewRehabilitation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrish v. Berryhill

Plaintiff Aaron Ray Parrish sought judicial review of an adverse final decision by the Social Security Administration Commissioner regarding his claim for disability insurance benefits. Parrish argued that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to consider all evidence, particularly concerning his mental health limitations (affective, anxiety, and personality disorders) when determining his residual functional capacity. The Commissioner contended that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and conformed to applicable law. The Court, presided over by United States Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy, found that it could not ascertain what evidence the ALJ considered at step three of the disability evaluation process, specifically regarding Parrish's difficulties in social functioning and concentration, persistence, or pace. The record did not sufficiently establish that the ALJ considered all relevant evidence, leading to a lack of substantial evidence to support the step three finding. Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the case was remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Social SecurityDisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentRemandAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilMental ImpairmentPhysical ImpairmentPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderDepression
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 15,698 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