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. No. 10-04-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2005

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. William Ira Mathison

William Ira Mathison was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel found he was not in the course and scope of his employment. A jury determined that Mathison was in the course and scope of his employment, a finding appealed by Pacific Employers Insurance Company. The appeal argued that the evidence supporting the jury's finding was legally and factually insufficient. The court, however, noted Mathison’s supervisor considered the trip to repair a work laptop to be in furtherance of the employer’s business. The court found that Mathison was impliedly directed by his employer, thus acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Worker's CompensationCourse of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyTexas Labor CodeSpecial Mission ExceptionEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 2-89-133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1990

McCoy v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

Margaret McCoy, an employee, sustained an injury on her employer's premises while attempting to pick up her paycheck before her scheduled shift. She had several alternative methods for receiving her pay. The trial court determined that McCoy was not acting within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the injury. On appeal, McCoy argued that the evidence established as a matter of law that her injury occurred within the course and scope of her employment. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that McCoy's actions were not in furtherance of her employer's business. A dissenting opinion argued that McCoy should have been considered within the course and scope of her employment as a matter of law.

Worker's CompensationCourse and Scope of EmploymentPaycheck CollectionPremises LiabilityEmployer AccommodationAppealAffirmationDissenting OpinionTexas LawSummary Judgment
References
5
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henshaw v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This is an appeal in a workman's compensation case. Leon H. Henshaw, an employee of Great Western Drilling Company, sought compensation benefits from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association for injuries sustained in an automobile accident while commuting home from work. The trial court instructed a verdict for the appellee, finding that Henshaw was not within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Henshaw contended that transporting a water can made his trip a 'substantial mission' for his employer. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the water can transport was merely incidental to his commute and did not place him within the scope of employment at the time of injury.

Workman's CompensationScope of EmploymentCommute RuleGoing and Coming RuleAutomobile AccidentPersonal MissionSubstantial MissionOil Field WorkerEmployer ResponsibilityIncidental Duties
References
9
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Konvicka

Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, the insurer of A. O. Smith Corporation, sued to set aside an award granted by the Texas Industrial Accident Board to the legal beneficiaries of John Konvicka. Konvicka, an employee, died from injuries sustained after attempting to start a stalled car in the employer's parking lot and then on a public highway following a heavy rain. The insurance company argued that the injury occurred outside the scope of employment since it was off-premises and after working hours. The court, however, determined that the injury was compensable under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Act, emphasizing that the incident originated on the employer's premises and was incident to employment, aligning with the liberal construction of the statute. Consequently, the court denied the insurer's attempt to set aside the award and affirmed the beneficiaries' entitlement to compensation.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryCommuting HazardParking Lot InjuryTexas LawLiberal ConstructionAccidentFatal Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Casualty Co. v. Hutchinson

This is a workers' compensation death case where Mary Jane Hutchinson sought benefits for her son, George W. Hutchinson, who died in an automobile accident while allegedly in the course and scope of his employment with Ford Motor Credit Corporation. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, but Employers Casualty Company appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the "dual-purpose travel doctrine." The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the decedent was in the course of his employment and that the dual-purpose travel doctrine was not applicable to the fatal trip.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentDual-Purpose Travel DoctrineAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceStatutory InterpretationEmployer's Affairs
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clingan v. Employers Casualty Co.

M. W. Clingan, father of the deceased Michael Clingan, sought to recover death benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Act from Employers Casualty Company. Michael, a graduate student and teaching assistant at Texas Tech University, died after being shot while assisting in moving laboratory equipment for cleaning, an activity the plaintiff argued constituted covered employment. The Industrial Accident Board initially awarded benefits, but the district court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the defendant. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Michael was not in covered employment at the time of his death, as his actions were deemed for his own research benefit and not within the scope of his defined teaching or janitorial duties.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsScope of EmploymentGraduate StudentTeaching AssistantLaboratory SafetyJudgment N.O.V.Statutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityInsurance Coverage
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Welch v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Betty Jo Welch appealed a take-nothing judgment in a worker's compensation death case concerning her son, Alan Wayne Welch, who drowned in a frac tank containing crude oil while employed by Jolley Well Service. The jury initially found Alan Welch was not in the course and scope of his employment, with Texas Employers' defense citing intoxication. Mrs. Welch argued the trial court erred in admitting testimony from Kenny Barnes about her son "sniffing gas" on a prior occasion, deeming it prejudicial and irrelevant. The appellate court agreed that the testimony was improperly admitted as it failed to meet the criteria for a declaration against interest or an admission, and was not relevant to the intoxication defense. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

worker's compensationdeath caseintoxication defensecourse and scope of employmentadmissibility of evidencehearsaydeclarations against interestmotion in limineprejudicial testimonyreversal and remand
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sells v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Edward D. Sells, a worker, appealed a take-nothing judgment in a workers' compensation case, arguing that the jury's failure to find his injury occurred during the course and scope of his employment with Westbrook Ready-Mix was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The appellee, Texas Employers’ Ins. Association (TEIA), filed a motion for rehearing, which the court ultimately overruled. The appellate court found the jury's refusal to link Sells' injury to his employment was manifestly wrong and unjust, given the overwhelming evidence presented. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial, emphasizing its responsibility to reweigh the evidence on factual insufficiency points.

Workers' CompensationJury VerdictFactual InsufficiencyStandard of ReviewGreat Weight and PreponderanceMotion for New TrialCourse and Scope of EmploymentAppellate ReviewCredibility of WitnessesExpert Testimony
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 15,654 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