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

Claim of Winters v. Advance Auto Parts

Claimant, injured while working for Advance Auto Parts and subsequently for LKQ Broadway Used Auto Parts, was terminated from LKQ for absenteeism. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s finding that his separation was due to his injury, ruling that he voluntarily removed himself from the labor market due to insufficient evidence of attachment. This court reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board erred by requiring documentation for participation in a job-location service (One-Stop Career Centers) despite finding the claimant's testimony credible. The court emphasized that the Board failed to adequately explain its departure from prior precedent, which accepted credible testimony without documentation for such services. The matter is remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLabor Market AttachmentVoluntary WithdrawalAbsenteeism TerminationCredible TestimonyDocumentary Evidence RequirementOne-Stop Career CentersVocational RehabilitationBoard PrecedentArbitrary Decision
References
11
Case No. 14-01-00099-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Bette Rose Schwager v. Telecheck Services, Inc. D/B/A Telecheck, a First Data CompanyFirst Data CorporationClay SpitzJim SikorskiSteve Shaper And Lori Graesser

Bette Rose Schwager appealed a summary judgment in favor of her former employer, TeleCheck Services, Inc., its parent company, and several executives, in an employment dispute. Schwager asserted claims for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, wrongful termination, defamation, constructive fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court affirmed the summary judgment on most of Schwager's claims, including fraud, constructive fraud, conversion, wrongful termination, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. However, the court reversed and remanded the portion of the breach of contract claim related to whether Schwager was fully paid her commissions, citing conflicting evidence on this issue. The original opinion from July 18, 2002, was withdrawn, and this new opinion on the motion for rehearing was issued.

Employment DisputeSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractFraudConversionWrongful TerminationDefamationEmotional DistressFiduciary DutyAt-Will Employment
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Dunne

The judgment was affirmed with respect to the defendant The Daily Worker Publishing Co., Inc. However, the judgment was reversed and the defendants William F. Dunne and Bert Miller were discharged. The court issued no opinion but ordered that orders be settled on notice. The judges present for the decision were Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Finch, McAvoy, and Proskauer, JJ.

Affirmed JudgmentReversed JudgmentDefendants DischargedMultiple DefendantsNo OpinionSettlement OrderAppellate Decision
References
0
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. M2021-01193-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2023

Robert Crotty v. Mark Flora, M.D. (Concur in Part and Dissent in Part)

This is a dissenting opinion regarding an interlocutory appeal that centers on the interpretation of Tennessee Code Annotated section 29-26-119 and its impact on the collateral source rule in health care liability actions. The dissenting judge argues that this statute abrogates the collateral source rule, asserting that recoverable damages should be limited to the actual economic losses suffered, specifically the amounts actually paid by plaintiffs or their insurance, rather than the full, undiscounted medical bills. The opinion emphasizes that the statutory language, particularly "actual economic losses suffered" and "paid or payable," clearly supports this interpretation. Furthermore, it references legislative intent behind the Medical Malpractice Act, which aimed to control healthcare costs, as a rationale for a strict construction of the statute.

Medical MalpracticeCollateral Source RuleStatutory InterpretationHealth Care Liability ActActual Economic LossesDamagesInsurance LawPretrial OrdersTennessee Supreme CourtDissenting Opinion
References
27
Case No. NO. 01-S-01-9612-CH-00238
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1998

Win Myint and Patti Kay Myint, et. ux. v. Allstate Insurance Company

Win and Patti Myint sued Allstate Insurance Company after their claims for water and fire damage to their rental property were denied. Allstate denied the fire claim, suspecting arson and increased hazard. The jury found Allstate liable for policy breach but not bad faith. The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed whether the Consumer Protection Act applies to insurance companies and if prejudgment interest was appropriately awarded. The Court affirmed the Consumer Protection Act's general applicability to the insurance industry but found Allstate's conduct in this case was not unfair or deceptive, thus denying relief under the Act. It reversed the Court of Appeals' decision regarding prejudgment interest, affirming the trial court's award.

Insurance lawConsumer Protection ActBad faith claimProperty damageArsonPrejudgment interestAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationEquitable remediesAbuse of discretion
References
22
Case No. 03-19-00770-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2021

Robert Charles Lowry, M.D.// Cross Texas Medical Board v. Texas Medical Board// Cross-Appellee, Robert Charles Lowry, M.D.

This Texas Court of Appeals memorandum opinion concerns a disciplinary action by the Texas Medical Board against Dr. Robert C. Lowry. Dr. Lowry appealed the trial court's judgment affirming in part and reversing in part the Board's order, while the Board cross-appealed portions of the reversal. The core issues involved whether Dr. Lowry unlawfully associated with and employed a physician, Dr. Dennis Barson, whose license was suspended, for EEG interpretations, and alleged violations of professional medical standards and recordkeeping. The Court found substantial evidence supported that Dr. Barson was practicing medicine, and that Dr. Lowry associated with and employed him. It also found substantial evidence for Dr. Lowry's failure to maintain professional standards regarding a patient's pain management and an unsigned EEG report, and for a recordkeeping violation concerning a missing plan of care. However, the court affirmed the trial court's reversal of findings related to a missing medication list, requiring expert testimony not presented. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the Board for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Medical MalpracticeProfessional DisciplineTexas Medical BoardPhysician License SuspensionEEG InterpretationMedical Practice ActStandard of CareRecordkeeping ViolationsAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
35
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
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 10,951 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