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. Docket No. 2017-07-0073; State File No. 81955-2016
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2018

Kizer, Jared v. Express Services, Inc.

Employee Jared Kizer suffered an amputation injury to his right hand while operating a machine for Express Services, Inc., a participant in Tennessee's Drug-Free Workplace Program. Following a positive post-accident drug test for THC, the employer denied the claim. The trial court initially concluded the employee rebutted the presumption that his drug use was the proximate cause of the injury by clear and convincing evidence. However, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board reversed this decision, finding the employee failed to meet the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that his drug use was not the proximate cause, despite issues with machine guarding and employee training also being noted. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationDrug-Free Workplace ProgramProximate CauseAmputation InjuryMachine SafetyTHC Positive TestToxicology ReportMedical Expert TestimonyOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ReportStatutory Presumption
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Kyne & Molfetas

This case involves an appeal from an order confirming an arbitration award, which was subsequently reversed and remanded to Special Term. The court mandated a hearing to determine two critical aspects: first, whether the arbitration contract was formed between the petitioner labor union and the respondent as an individual or on behalf of a corporate entity; and second, whether the respondent received due notice of the arbitration. The decision emphasizes that the court, not the arbitrator, must decide on the existence of a valid contract and proper notice. Furthermore, even if these conditions are met, the matter must be remanded to the arbitrator to clarify the ambiguity of the award, which directed payments to unidentified individuals, rendering it imperfectly executed and not a final and definite award as required by the Civil Practice Act.

ArbitrationContract ExistenceNotice RequirementAmbiguity in AwardRemandSpecial TermLabor UnionRespondent IdentityCivil Practice ActProcedural Reversal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas County v. Logan, Roy

This case is an interlocutory appeal where Dallas County challenges the denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in a whistleblower lawsuit filed by Roy Logan. Initially, the appellate court affirmed the denial, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, clarifying that all immunity grounds, even if newly raised on appeal, must be considered. On remand, the court evaluates Dallas County's arguments concerning whether Logan reported violations to an 'appropriate law enforcement authority' and if his reports were made in 'good faith,' encompassing both subjective and objective elements. The court concludes that the investigators hired by Dallas County were not considered part of a governmental entity under the Whistleblower Act. Due to Logan not having a full opportunity to address newly raised jurisdictional issues regarding objective good faith in the trial court, particularly in light of recent Supreme Court guidance, the case is reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Whistleblower ActGovernmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeTexas Government CodeObjective Good FaithSubjective Good FaithLaw Enforcement AuthorityRetaliation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Wilson v. Wilson

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court judgment in New York County, dated October 29, 1975, which had dismissed a mother's petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking to regain custody of her 15-year-old child from the child's grandmother. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's decision, finding that while extraordinary circumstances existed (mother's voluntary surrender of custody, child's long-term residence with grandmother, mother's unwed status and living situation, and past emotional issues) that warranted applying the 'best interest of the child' standard, the original hearing was inadequate. The court noted deficiencies such as the child not testifying, restricted inquiry into the mother's relationship with the child, and limited elaboration by a psychiatric worker. Therefore, the matter was remanded for a new hearing to properly determine the child's best interest, to be conducted before a different judge. Justice Kupferman concurred with the 'best interest' standard but dissented on the need to assign a different judge.

Child CustodyHabeas CorpusParental RightsBest Interest of the ChildExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewFamily LawRemandInadequate HearingJudicial Dissent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Archie v. Todd Shipyards Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning a wrongful death action. The administratrix of a decedent’s estate sued Todd Shipyards Corporation after the decedent, an employee of Metalock Repair Service, Inc., drowned in a drydock. The decedent was working on a scaffold without guard rails or toe boards, in violation of multiple codes including the New York City Building Code, State Industrial Code, and Labor Law § 240(2). The original complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The appellate court found sufficient evidence of the defendant’s negligence, including statutory violations, to warrant submission to a jury. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized a less stringent burden of proof in death actions and that contributory negligence is a defense for the defendant to prove. The judgment dismissing the complaint was unanimously reversed, and the matter was remanded for a new trial.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceScaffold SafetyLabor Law ViolationsCircumstantial EvidencePrima Facie CaseDismissal ReversedRemanded for New TrialContributory NegligenceCustom and Usage
References
7
Case No. 14-06-00513-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2008

Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Harris County, Texas

This case involves an appeal by the Metropolitan Transit Authority (Metro) against Harris County, Texas. Harris County sued Metro to recover property damages and its statutory subrogation interest after a Metro bus struck a tractor driven by Spencer Townsell, a Harris County employee. Harris County had paid workers' compensation benefits to Townsell and his medical care providers. Metro appealed the trial court's judgment, contending errors in denying its motion for a directed verdict, submitting an improper jury charge, and admitting certain evidence. The appellate court affirmed the property damage award but reversed and remanded the remainder of the judgment due to the trial court's failure to properly instruct the jury on the reasonableness and necessity of medical expenses and the causal relationship of damages, emphasizing that a subrogee carrier bears the same burden of proof as the injured employee in a direct suit against a tortfeasor.

Subrogation LawTexas Labor CodeCivil Practice and Remedies CodeJury Charge InstructionsMedical Expense ProofCausation StandardAppellate ReversalPartial AffirmanceRemand for New TrialDamages Calculation
References
30
Case No. 2014-06-0072
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2015

Brees, Sarah v. Escape Day Spa & Salon

Sarah Brees, a massage therapist, claimed a cumulative trauma injury to her right wrist while employed by Escape Day Spa & Salon. The employer initially denied compensability. The Court of Workers' Compensation Claims found for the employee, awarding medical and temporary disability benefits based on her testimony and Dr. Abbey's opinion. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed this decision, finding that the authorized treating physician, Dr. Siegel, had provided a causation opinion (no injury, unknown etiology, multifactorial) which was entitled to a presumption of correctness. The Board concluded that Dr. Abbey's opinion did not sufficiently rebut Dr. Siegel's, thus the employee failed to establish causation, and the case was remanded.

Workers' CompensationCumulative TraumaRepetitive Motion InjuryRight Wrist InjuryCausationMedical OpinionPresumption of CorrectnessTreating PhysicianAppeals BoardReversed and Remanded
References
9
Case No. 2016-08-0876
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Morales, Rigoberto v. Boshwit Brothers, Inc.

An employee, Rigoberto Morales, working as a groundskeeper for Boshwit Brothers, Inc., sustained gunshot wounds during an assault by an unknown individual while mowing grass near a public road. The employer denied the claim, asserting the injury did not arise primarily out of employment, a conclusion initially affirmed by the trial court. On interlocutory appeal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the employee's duties exposed him to the general public and that operating noisy equipment near a public road increased his vulnerability, thus applying the street risk doctrine. The Board concluded that the employee is likely to prevail in establishing his injuries arose primarily out of his employment and remanded the case for a determination of benefits.

Workers' CompensationAssaultStreet Risk DoctrineEmployment InjuryGroundskeeperGunshot WoundsCompensabilityInterlocutory AppealCausal ConnectionIncreased Risk
References
10
Case No. 2015-01-0055
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2015

Scott, Susan v. Integrity Staffing Solutions

The employee, Susan Scott, alleged a left shoulder injury at work. The employer's panel physician, Dr. Neil Spitalny, opined no work-related injury, attributing symptoms to preexisting conditions. The trial court disregarded Dr. Spitalny's opinion, relying on the employee's lay testimony, and ordered medical benefits with a different physician, while denying temporary disability benefits. Both parties appealed to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Appeals Board reversed the trial court's order for medical benefits, finding it erred in disregarding the treating physician's causation opinion and in relying solely on lay testimony. The Board affirmed the denial of temporary disability benefits and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationMedical CausationLay TestimonyTreating Physician PresumptionTemporary Disability BenefitsAppeals BoardEmployer PanelExpert Medical EvidenceRule 703 EvidencePreexisting Conditions
References
8
Case No. 2023-07-5993
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2025

Mansell, Gary v. Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc.

Employee Gary Mansell sustained a back injury and received treatment until his physician, Dr. Vance, declared him at maximum medical improvement (MMI) and halted temporary disability benefits. Months later, Mansell's pain recurred, leading to further medical care and a referral to a neurosurgeon, which the employer subsequently denied after briefly reinstating benefits. The trial court mandated the resumption of temporary disability payments and authorized the neurosurgeon referral. However, the Appeals Board reversed the order compelling additional temporary benefits, determining that Mansell had not provided expert medical evidence to show the initial MMI declaration was premature or incorrect. The Board affirmed the order in all other respects and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsMaximum Medical ImprovementBack InjuryMedical ImpairmentTreating Physician OpinionNeurosurgeon ReferralAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofExpert Medical Evidence
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 11,445 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