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. 2018-03-1345
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2019

Morgan, Jr., Otto v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

In an interlocutory appeal, the employer appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations. The employee's surviving spouse filed a petition for death benefits, asserting that the employee's death was caused by employment-related diseases. The employer contended that the claim was time-barred as the statute of limitations had expired one year after the employee received federal benefits for his occupational illness. The trial court denied the motion, finding disputed issues of material fact regarding when the employee became incapacitated from working. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that an impairment rating or receipt of federal benefits does not conclusively establish incapacity for work, which is crucial for triggering the statute of limitations. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsOccupational DiseaseSummary JudgmentIncapacity for WorkDeath BenefitsAppeals Board DecisionMedical Impairment RatingFederal BenefitsAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P.T. & E. Co. v. Beasley

This case involves a wrongful death and survival action stemming from a fatal collision between a truck-tractor driven by appellant Wyman Lee Scroggins and a pickup truck driven by James F. Beasley. The heirs of James F. Beasley (appellees) sued Scroggins and P.T. & E. Company (appellants) for common law negligence, wrongful death, and survival statutes. The jury found Scroggins negligent and awarded damages, but the trial court initially disregarded awards for mental anguish. Appellants' points of error challenging liability, damages, and jury misconduct were overruled. Appellees cross-appealed the denial of mental anguish damages. The appellate court reinstated the jury's award for mental anguish damages for the spouse, children, and mother of the deceased, citing recent Texas Supreme Court precedent extending such recovery, and affirmed the judgment as reformed.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionNegligenceJury MisconductDamagesMental AnguishLoss of ConsortiumPecuniary LossAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Texas Woman's Hospital, Inc.

Michael Martin was born with injuries at Texas Women’s Hospital (TWH) in 1978. TWH increased its insurance coverage and then sold its assets to HCA before dissolving in 1979 without notifying Michael's parents. Michael's father sued TWH in 1992, before Michael's fourteenth birthday, arguing timeliness under the Medical Liability Act. TWH moved for summary judgment, claiming the suit was barred by the corporate survival statute, which limits actions against dissolved corporations to three years post-dissolution. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWH. The appellate court examined the interplay between the Medical Liability Act's statute of limitations for minors and the corporate survival statute. The court held that the corporate survival statute controls, but found a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether TWH had complied with the notice requirement for 'known claimants' prior to dissolution, specifically whether Michael Martin was a 'known claimant' given TWH's actions regarding insurance. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case.

Medical Liability ActCorporate Survival StatuteSummary Judgment AppealMinor PlaintiffDissolved CorporationStatute of LimitationsNotice RequirementsKnown ClaimantBackdated InsuranceCorporate Dissolution
References
12
Case No. Shelby Circuit No. 47678 T.D.; C.A. No. 02A01-9602-CV-00038
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1996

Darryl Jones, as surviving next of kin of Goldie Jones v. Dana A. Watson,and Sheree Watson

Darryl Jones, as the surviving next of kin of Goldie Jones, filed a wrongful death action in Shelby County Circuit Court against Dana A. Watson and Sheree Watson following a fatal motor vehicle accident. The defendants' insurer, Allstate, offered a settlement, but complexities arose due to a worker's compensation claim and a separate wrongful death action filed by Goldie Jones' son, Polk, which prevented the settlement from being finalized. Years after the initial filing, the defendants moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the plaintiff failed to comply with Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 3 and 4 regarding service of process, thus barring the claim under the statute of limitations. The trial court granted this motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed, holding that the defendants were equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense due to Allstate's repeated offers and confirmations of settlement, which led the plaintiff to reasonably delay prosecution. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

Equitable EstoppelStatute of LimitationsWrongful DeathMotor Vehicle AccidentService of ProcessInsurance SettlementAppellate ReviewTennessee LawCivil ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Subrogation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russell v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.

Donnon Russell developed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease from silica exposure during employment. He sued several product manufacturers but died before trial. His widow and children continued the suit as plaintiffs, also adding new defendants, claiming damages under the Survival Statute and Wrongful Death Statute. The new defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred because Russell's own action would have been barred at his death. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the lower courts' decision, holding that both survival and wrongful death actions are derivative of the decedent's rights and are therefore barred by limitations if the decedent's personal injury action would have been barred at the time of his death, despite the wrongful death statute stating accrual at death.

Wrongful DeathSurvival ActionStatute of LimitationsAccrual of ActionDerivative ClaimsPersonal InjurySilica ExposureOccupational DiseaseSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
99
Case No. 2021-08-0034
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Williams, Linda (by Lawrence Williams, surviving spouse) v. Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare

This death claim involves Lawrence Williams, surviving spouse of Linda Williams, who contracted COVID-19 while employed by Methodist Lebonheur Healthcare. The primary dispute centered on the calculation of the maximum total death benefit. Methodist argued for a benefit capped at $184,918.50, based on Ms. Williams's weekly compensation rate. However, the Court, drawing on the precedent of Reynolds v. Free Serv. Tire Co. and interpretations of Tennessee Code Annotated, determined that the correct maximum total benefit was $447,300.00, calculated as 450 weeks times the state's average weekly wage. The Court found the reasoning in Reynolds persuasive, despite Methodist's objections regarding its citation status. Consequently, the Court ordered Methodist to pay Mr. Williams the higher death benefits.

Death ClaimWorkers' CompensationCOVID-19Surviving SpouseMaximum Total BenefitAverage Weekly WageStatutory InterpretationTennessee LawBenefit CalculationCase Precedent
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1989

Trevino v. Lightning Laydown, Inc.

This case involves a wrongful death and survival action following the death of Jose Trevino in a collision caused by a detached trailer. The appellants sued International Bank of Commerce (IBC) and several other defendants, who settled. A jury found IBC five percent at fault due to negligence and conscious indifference, but declined to award exemplary damages, while the settling defendants were ninety-five percent at fault. The trial court limited IBC's liability to five percent of actual damages. On appeal, the appellants argued that IBC's gross negligence should make it liable for the entire damages, contending that gross negligence is a distinct cause of action not subject to comparative negligence statutes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that gross negligence is not a "theory other than negligence" within the meaning of Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co. and that the comparative negligence framework was correctly applied to reduce IBC's liability.

wrongful deathsurvival actionnegligencegross negligencecomparative negligenceexemplary damagesMary Carter settlementjoint tortfeasorsproduct liabilityappellate decision
References
18
Case No. 11-15-00123-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2016

Liberty Insurance Corporation v. Mary Ann Tarango, Surviving Spouse of Manual Tarango

This case involves an appeal from the judicial review of an administrative decision by a Texas Division of Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. The panel had previously denied workers’ compensation death benefits to Mary Ann Tarango, surviving spouse of Manuel Tarango, due to alleged abandonment. The trial court subsequently reversed this administrative decision, ruling in favor of Mary Ann and entitling her to benefits. However, the Eleventh Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred by improperly placing the burden of proof on Liberty Insurance Corporation to demonstrate abandonment, rather than on Mary Ann Tarango as the party seeking judicial review. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewBurden of ProofAbandonmentDeath BenefitsSpousal EligibilityTexas Labor CodeAppeals PanelTrial Court ErrorAdministrative Decision
References
4
Case No. E2008-01596-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

Evelyn Nye, Individually and as Surviving Spouse and Next-of-Kin of Hugh Todd Nye v. Bayer Cropscience, Inc.

Evelyn Nye, individually and as surviving spouse of Hugh Todd Nye, brought a product liability action against Bayer Cropscience, Inc., and later solely against National Service Industries, Inc., d/b/a North Brothers, alleging her husband's mesothelioma was caused by asbestos exposure from products sold by North Brothers to his employer, DuPont. The jury initially found in favor of North Brothers, a verdict approved by the Trial Court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed the trial court's judgment, finding errors in jury instructions, specifically regarding the application of the 'learned intermediary' or 'sophisticated buyer' doctrine to DuPont's knowledge of asbestos hazards, which improperly functioned as a directed verdict. The court also clarified the distinction between cause in fact and proximate cause concerning employer immunity under workers' compensation law. The case was remanded for a new trial with directives for proper jury instructions and verdict forms.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaProduct LiabilityStrict LiabilityFailure to WarnJury InstructionsLearned Intermediary DoctrineSophisticated User DoctrineComparative FaultWorkers' Compensation Immunity
References
66
Case No. 11-17-00130-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2019

Francis Gonzales, Individually and as Surviving Widow of Carlos Gonzales v. Brad Williams D/B/A Brad Williams Farms

Appellant Francis Gonzales, individually and as the surviving widow of Carlos Gonzales, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Appellee Brad Williams d/b/a Brad Williams Farms. The lawsuit stemmed from Carlos Gonzales's death in a single-vehicle accident while in the course and scope of employment with Appellee, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, alleging negligence and gross negligence. Appellee asserted an intoxication defense based on a toxicology report showing multiple controlled substances in Carlos's blood. Appellant argued a lack of reasonable notice for a summary judgment rehearing and the existence of material fact issues, but the appellate court affirmed. The court found that the second hearing did not require new notice and that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption of intoxication, noting that the cause of the accident was irrelevant to the intoxication defense.

Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentIntoxication DefenseWrongful DeathNegligenceGross NegligenceMedical Examiner ReportToxicology ReportControlled SubstancesBurden of Proof
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 3,525 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