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. 11-24-00054-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Lone Star Well Service LLC v. RMTDC Operations D/B/A Total Energy Services, LLC and Daniel Ramirez

This appeal concerns the application of the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act (TOAIA) to an oilfield indemnity agreement. Lone Star Well Service LLC appealed a judgment that obligated it to defend and indemnify RMTDC Operations d/b/a Total Energy Services, LLC and Daniel Ramirez. The appellate court affirmed that Total and Ramirez are third-party beneficiaries to Lone Star's Master Services Agreement with Parsley Energy Operations, LLC, and thus are covered by the mutual, insurance-backed indemnity obligations. However, the court reversed the judgment in part, remanding the case to the trial court to determine the specific amount and limitation of Lone Star's indemnity obligation.

Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActIndemnity AgreementThird-Party BeneficiaryContractual InterpretationMutual Indemnity ObligationInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesRipeness Doctrine
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Total Oilfield Services, Inc.

The appellants, comprising the surviving widow and minor children of Jose Alejo Garcia, appealed the trial court's dismissal of their cause of action against Total Oilfield Services, Inc. Jose Alejo Garcia died in an industrial accident in Oklahoma while employed by the appellee. The appellants sought exemplary damages under the Texas Constitution, having already received Oklahoma workers' compensation benefits. The trial court dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that Texas courts had jurisdiction and that Texas law, allowing extraterritorial application of wrongful death actions, should apply despite Oklahoma's exclusive remedy provision. The court also determined that Texas had a superior governmental interest in the case, outweighing Oklahoma law under full faith and credit principles and the "most significant relationship" choice-of-law rule.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathExemplary DamagesConflict of LawsSubject Matter JurisdictionFull Faith and CreditTexas ConstitutionOklahoma LawExtraterritorial ApplicationElection of Remedies
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06836
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Christensen-Mavrigiannakis v. Nomura Sec. Intl., Inc.

Claimant Deborah Christensen-Mavrigiannakis sustained a workplace injury from a fall, initially establishing claims for neck and back injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) later amended the claim to include a left shoulder injury and subsequently bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and right cubital tunnel syndrome, along with awards at a temporary total disability rate. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the WCB's decision regarding the left shoulder injury, citing substantial evidence based on the treating physician's testimony. However, the court reversed the WCB's amendment for the carpal tunnel and cubital tunnel syndromes, finding the medical opinion supporting causal relationship irrational. The Appellate Division upheld the WCB's finding of total disability and associated awards, acknowledging the Board's authority to modify prior decisions.

Workers' CompensationCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceLeft Shoulder InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCubital Tunnel SyndromeIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Workers' Compensation Board (WCB)Appellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
12
Case No. Docket No. 2018-05-1127, State File No. 53470-2018
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2020

Barnes, William v. Jack Cooper Transport Co.

In this interlocutory appeal, the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a case involving William Barnes, an employee who sustained a left knee injury at work, exacerbating pre-existing osteoarthritis. The employer, Jack Cooper Transport Co., and its current insurer, National Interstate Insurance Company, denied authorization for a total knee arthroplasty, arguing it was related to pre-existing conditions rather than the recent 2018 work incident. The trial court initially ordered authorization, but the Appeals Board reversed this specific order. While affirming the provision of reasonable and necessary medical benefits causally related to the 2018 injury, the Board found that the preponderance of medical evidence, particularly from the authorized treating physician Dr. Garside, did not support the conclusion that the 2018 incident was the primary cause (contributing more than 50%) for the need of the total knee arthroplasty, outweighing the opinion of Dr. Jones which the trial court credited.

Workers' Compensation AppealsKnee InjuryPre-existing ConditionOsteoarthritis ExacerbationTotal Knee ArthroplastyMedical CausationPanel Physician SelectionPresumption of CorrectnessAbuse of DiscretionExpert Medical Opinion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2002

In re the Claim of Miller v. North Syracuse Central School District

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning overlapping workers' compensation awards. The claimant, a food services worker, filed two separate claims: one for occupational disease to her shoulders, leading to a schedule loss of use award, and another for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which resulted in a temporary total disability award for the period from December 13, 1999, to February 14, 2000. The State Insurance Fund argued that the schedule loss of use award should be suspended for this period to prevent an overlap. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disagreed, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling in favor of suspending the schedule award. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that a schedule award is not allocable to a specific period of disability and therefore does not overlap with a temporary total disability award covering a limited timeframe. The court distinguished this from cases involving permanent disability awards. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for recalculation of the claimant’s award.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseTemporary Total DisabilityOverlapping AwardsEarning CapacityOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeShoulder InjuryAppellate ReviewRecalculation of Award
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00466
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

Matter of Kennedy v. 3rd Track Constructors

Claimant Alastair Kennedy, an operating engineer, sustained work-related injuries in October 2019 after falling into a hole at a job site, filing for workers' compensation benefits for left shoulder, foot, and ankle injuries. The employer's carrier accepted the claim for foot and ankle but contested neck and left shoulder injuries, also raising a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found claimant's testimony regarding the accident and prior injuries not credible, denying the claims for neck and left shoulder injuries and imposing mandatory and discretionary penalties under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's findings regarding the non-causal relation of neck and left shoulder injuries and the mandatory penalty for misrepresentations. However, the Court reversed the discretionary penalty of total disqualification from future wage loss benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense, modifying and affirming the Board's decision as so modified.

Workers' CompensationInjury ClaimCredibility AssessmentMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a ViolationMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWage Loss BenefitsCausal RelationshipMedical Evidence
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vogel v. Wells Fargo Guard Services

Walter Vogel, a 73-year-old security guard, sustained a work-related shoulder and back injury, leading to a trial court finding of 100% permanent and total disability. The trial court declared Tennessee Code Annotated Section 50-6-207(4)(A)(i) unconstitutional for its age-related benefit caps and awarded Vogel lifetime benefits. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, upholding the constitutionality of the statute's age-based distinctions for permanent total disability benefits under the Equal Protection Clause and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, finding them rationally related to the state's interest in tying workers' compensation to Social Security benefits. However, the Court found the statute's disparate treatment of permanent total versus permanent partial disability benefits for workers over sixty to be irrational, modifying the award to 260 weeks of benefits for the plaintiff.

Workers' CompensationAge DiscriminationEqual ProtectionConstitutional LawPermanent Total DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilitySocial Security BenefitsWage LossJudicial ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. 533556
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Alastair Kennedy

Claimant, an operating engineer, sustained work-related injuries in October 2019 after falling into a hole at a job site. He initially filed for workers' compensation benefits, which were accepted for left foot and ankle injuries. He later alleged neck and left shoulder injuries, which the carrier contested, also raising a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation due to alleged misrepresentations. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant's testimony not credible regarding the accident and prior injuries, disallowed the neck and shoulder claims, and imposed both mandatory and discretionary penalties under § 114-a. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision to disallow the claims for neck and shoulder injuries and upheld the mandatory penalty for misrepresentation, finding it supported by substantial evidence. However, the Court reversed the imposition of the discretionary penalty of total disqualification from future wage loss benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense, thereby modifying the Board's decision.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausally-Related InjuriesCredibility DeterminationMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWage Loss BenefitsAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
16
Case No. W2018-00840-SC-WCM-WC
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2019

Deborah L. Bain v. UTI Integrated Logistics LLC

Deborah Bain, a shuttle truck driver, suffered compensable injuries to her right shoulder and wrist in August 2010, followed by a left shoulder injury in January 2013. The trial court found that Bain was not permanently and totally disabled, applied a 1.5 times cap on her disability benefits due to voluntary resignation, assigned a 6% medical impairment rating for the 2013 injury, and held Employer not responsible for expenses related to treatment sought independently. Bain appealed these rulings, while Employer appealed the award of further temporary total disability benefits. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence did not preponderate against the finding of no permanent total disability and that the statutory caps applied due to Bain's voluntary resignation without seeking employer accommodation. The panel also upheld the 6% impairment rating and the denial of unauthorized medical expenses, while affirming the award of temporary total disability benefits for the period between Bain's left shoulder surgery and her resignation.

Workers' Compensation AppealShoulder InjuryWrist InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityMedical ImpairmentVoluntary ResignationMeaningful Return to WorkUnauthorized Medical TreatmentIndependent Medical Examination
References
13
Case No. 06-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC v. Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson

Reverse Mortgage Funding, LLC (RMF) appealed a default judgment entered against it after failing to timely answer a lawsuit filed by Carla Nagle Blevins Robertson. Robertson sought to quiet title, asserting that Katie Nagle, who entered a reverse mortgage with RMF's predecessor, only possessed a life estate that terminated upon her death, rendering the mortgage void. RMF moved for a new trial, claiming a meritorious defense as a bona fide mortgagee without actual or constructive notice of Robertson's claim. The Court of Appeals initially affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding RMF failed to factually support its claims of lacking notice. Subsequently, the parties settled, leading to the appeal's dismissal, though the court denied the request to withdraw its earlier opinion, citing its public importance.

Default JudgmentMeritorious DefenseBona Fide MortgageeQuiet Title ActionLife EstateReverse MortgageActual NoticeConstructive NoticeAppellate ProcedureMotion for New Trial
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 12,004 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