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

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

Stratton v. DEPARTMENT FOR AGING CITY OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff Joyce Stratton sued the New York City Department for the Aging (DFTA) and Commissioner Prema Mathai-Davis for age discrimination and retaliation after her termination at age 61 and failure to be rehired. A jury found for Stratton, awarding $500,000 in damages, determining age was a factor and the non-rehire was retaliatory and willful. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, arguing insufficient evidence, erroneous admission of statistical evidence, and excessive damages. Plaintiff cross-moved for front pay and restoration of benefits. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial regarding statistical evidence. The motion for a new trial due to excessive damages was denied on condition that plaintiff accept a remittitur reducing the award from $500,000 to $373,886.23. Plaintiff's motion for front pay and benefits, totaling $378,000, was granted.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawJury VerdictPost-trial MotionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew TrialRemittiturFront PayBack Pay
References
30
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

Falcon v. General Telephone Co. of Southwest

This Memorandum Opinion addresses remands from the Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit in the landmark employment discrimination case Falcon v. General Telephone Co. The court, presided over by District Judge Buchmeyer, conducted a 'rigorous analysis' and evaluated statistical evidence. It concluded that the individual plaintiff, Mariano S. Falcon, who claimed promotion discrimination, could not represent a class of Mexican-American applicants who were not hired, as their claims were not 'fairly encompassed' and Falcon lacked standing. Despite this, due to prior Fifth Circuit rulings, the court would permit intervention by one of 13 original class members to pursue the class hiring claims. However, the court ultimately found the class claims of hiring discrimination to be 'baseless' after a 'more specific evaluation' of the statistical evidence, determining that General Telephone did not discriminate in hiring. For Falcon's individual claim of promotion discrimination, a new trial on liability was deemed necessary due to conflicting testimony and the application of Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine standards. However, any potential damages for Falcon were capped at $1,040.33, an amount significantly less than the $7,373.27 in appeal costs Falcon owed to General Telephone. Therefore, the court conditionally dismissed the case unless Falcon paid the appeal costs or posted a bond, after which only the liability of his individual promotion claim and related attorneys' fees would proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionRacial DiscriminationPromotion DiscriminationHiring DiscriminationRule 23(a)Statistical EvidenceDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentRes Judicata
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anthony v. Nemec

Plaintiff, a former employee, commenced an action alleging gender discrimination under the Human Rights Law, claiming she was terminated because she was a woman of childbearing age intending to become pregnant and take maternity leave. The Supreme Court initially found an inference of discrimination, but the appellate court determined that this inference was rebutted by defendant's evidence that the position was filled by another woman of childbearing age who also became pregnant and was accommodated. The court found no competent evidence of discriminatory intent, stating that plaintiff's claims relied on insufficient statistical evidence and uncorroborated allegations. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that defendant's motion for summary judgment should have been granted due to the absence of sufficient evidence to demonstrate unlawful discrimination.

gender discriminationemployment terminationpregnancy discriminationmaternity leaveHuman Rights Lawsummary judgmentprima facie caseunlawful discriminationrebuttalchildbearing age
References
2
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. ADJ8518632
Regular
May 09, 2017

HORACIO MONTOYA vs. CBC FRAMING, INC., ARCH INSURANCE COMPANY, A B GALLAGHER BASSETT

The WCAB granted the defendant's Petition for Removal regarding a prior WCJ order compelling a Functional Capacity Evaluation. Removal was granted because the WCJ's order was based on a medical report that had not been formally admitted into evidence, preventing meaningful review. The Board will now admit the defendant's medical report into evidence for the limited purpose of determining the Petition for Removal. This action is an extraordinary remedy due to the prejudice caused by relying on unadmitted evidence.

RemovalFunctional Capacity EvaluationIndustrial InjuryPrejudiceIrreparable HarmAdmitted EvidenceQualified Medical EvaluationExhibit AAdministrative Law JudgePetition for Removal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Patino

The defendant, a police officer, moved to dismiss an indictment charging him with offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, attempted grand larceny in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree, and defrauding the government. These charges stemmed from allegations that he falsely claimed permanent disability and improperly collected money from Nassau County. The defendant's motion to dismiss was based on claims of selective and vindictive prosecution, defective Grand Jury proceedings (improper instructions and failure to introduce exculpatory evidence), legally insufficient evidence, and a defective indictment. The court, presided over by Jack Mackston, J., denied the motion to dismiss, finding no evidence of selective or vindictive prosecution by the District Attorney, adequate Grand Jury instructions, and legally sufficient evidence. The court also denied dismissal in the interest of justice but partially granted a motion for disclosure of certain statistics.

Criminal Procedure LawGrand JuryIndictmentSelective ProsecutionVindictive ProsecutionFalse InstrumentGrand LarcenyGovernment FraudPolice Misconduct AllegationsDisability Fraud
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 1975

Abeyta v. Travelers Insurance Co.

In this workers' compensation case, the plaintiff challenged the jury's findings that his injury was not the producing cause of any total or partial incapacity. He also contended that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of unemployment compensation benefits. The plaintiff sustained an injury on June 28, 1974, while working for W. D. Turner Construction Company, but medical examinations showed no objective findings of injury and he returned to work. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the jury's decision was supported by ample evidence and that any error in admitting evidence of unemployment benefits was harmless.

Workers' CompensationSufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingsProducing CauseIncapacityUnemployment BenefitsAdmissibility of EvidenceHarmless ErrorMedical EvidenceEmployment History
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 15,091 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