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

Depriter v. Tom Thumb Stores, Inc.

Justice James dissents from the majority opinion, arguing that the trial court erred by not providing a proper causation instruction to the jury in a retaliatory discharge case involving Depriter and Tom Thumb. Depriter claimed her discharge was linked to a workers' compensation proceeding, and Justice James contends her proposed instruction, though not using 'contributing cause,' adequately preserved the error. The dissent emphasizes that the Texas Supreme Court's analysis in Hinds, which established a 'but for' causation standard for Whistleblower Act cases, should similarly apply to article 8307c cases, where retaliation need not be the sole cause of discharge. Consequently, Justice James concludes that the omission of such an instruction prevented the jury from making a necessary finding for liability and would therefore reverse the trial court's judgment.

Dissenting OpinionJury InstructionCausation StandardRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ActWhistleblower ActBurden of ProofPreservation of ErrorTrial Court ErrorTexas Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Cullum Companies, Inc.

Dovie Irene Henry appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Cullum Companies, Inc. (Tom Thumb) in a slip-and-fall negligence case. Henry initially sought recovery under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), alleging misrepresentations about the safety of the store's floors. The trial court granted a partial summary judgment, ruling that premises liability cases were not within the purview of the DTPA. Henry subsequently removed the DTPA claims from her pleadings. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, distinguishing between services as the primary objective of a bargain and incidental services like the use of store floors, concluding that the latter do not fall under the DTPA's definition of services "furnished in connection with the sale of goods." Thus, Henry was not considered a "consumer" under the DTPA for her injury related to the store's floors.

Summary JudgmentDeceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer StatusPremises LiabilitySlip and FallGoods and ServicesIncidental UseTexas Business and Commerce CodeAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Tom Soto, Jr., an injured worker, filed a worker's compensation claim against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association after suffering a right thumb injury that extended to his hand. A jury found total and partial loss of use of his thumb, and partial loss of use of his hand. Soto appealed the trial court's compensation calculation and its refusal to award separate compensation for the thumb and hand injuries. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the trial court correctly applied the current worker's compensation statute, which limits partial permanent incapacity awards based on a statutory maximum weekly benefit. Additionally, the court held that compensation cannot be cumulated for a single injury affecting multiple parts of the same limb (thumb and hand are considered one member below the elbow for compensation purposes).

Worker's Compensation LawIndustrial AccidentThumb and Hand InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityCompensation CalculationStatutory InterpretationAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil StatutesSpecific Schedule InjuryLoss of Use
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Deck v. Dorr

This is a dissenting opinion concerning a Workers' Compensation Board's amended decision regarding a schedule loss of use (SLU) award. The claimant had already received a 100% SLU award for the loss of four fingers on their right hand and was granted an additional 100% SLU for their right thumb. The dissenting judge, Aarons, J., argues that there was a lack of substantial medical evidence to support the additional award for the thumb, as the claimant's surgeon did not explain how the thumb injury was separate and distinct from the injury to the other four fingers, which resulted from a single incident. The dissent highlights that the New York State Guidelines for Determining Permanent Impairment and Loss of Wage Earning Capacity specify that the loss of all fingers at proximal phalanges equates to 100% loss of use of the hand. Based on this, the dissenting judge would have reversed the portion of the amended decision granting the additional SLU for the thumb, although the final order stated the amended decision was affirmed.

schedule loss of useSLU awardright hand injurythumb amputationfinger amputationworkers' compensation boarddissenting opinionmedical evidencepermanent impairmentwage earning capacity
References
3
Case No. M2013-00763-WC-R3-WC
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2014

Larry O. Evans v. Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Company

Larry O. Evans, an employee, suffered a compensable right thumb injury. The trial court awarded partial disability, apportioning it to the arm and limiting benefits under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-241(d)(1)(A). Evans appealed, arguing the award should be apportioned to the thumb, which is not subject to the same cap. The Special Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the injury's location where the thumb joins the wrist, considered part of the arm for workers' compensation, justified the arm apportionment as per established precedent regarding concurrent scheduled member injuries.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityApportionment of DisabilityThumb InjuryArm InjuryMedical Impairment RatingScheduled Member InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeTrigger ThumbSurgical Complications
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Barker

In this workers’ compensation case, Texas Employers Insurance Association (TEIA) appealed a judgment awarding Laverne Barker cumulative benefits for 210 weeks due to the loss of use of her left thumb and hand. The core issue was whether compensation for both injuries could be cumulated. The jury found permanent total loss of use for both the thumb and the hand. However, the appellate court, interpreting Tex. Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306, § 12, determined that Barker suffered a single injury to her hand, which included the thumb. Consequently, the court held that Barker was entitled to compensation for 150 weeks for the hand injury only. The judgment was reversed and remanded for recalculation.

Injury BenefitsLoss of UseThumb InjuryHand InjuryCumulative CompensationConcurrent IncapacitiesStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureJury FindingsTexas Civil Statutes
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Kaja v. Siller Bros.

The claimant, a construction worker, initially received workers' compensation benefits for a severed left thumb in May 2003. A subsequent claim for a consequential neck injury was denied by the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board also denied the claimant's application for reconsideration regarding both the neck injury and further disability of the thumb. The claimant appealed the Board's May 2009 decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial of reconsideration for the neck injury. However, the court modified the decision, reversing the denial of reconsideration for the left thumb injury based on newly presented medical evidence, and remitted that issue back to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation AppealApplication for ReconsiderationFull Board ReviewCausally Related InjuryNeck InjuryLeft Thumb Schedule Loss of UseIndependent Medical ReportNew Medical EvidenceRemittal to BoardAbuse of Discretion Review
References
3
Case No. 2019-06-2251
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2020

Turner, Arebius v. Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc.

Arebius Turner, an employee, sought medical benefits for a right-thumb injury and an alleged mental injury stemming from a workplace accident. The employer, Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc., accepted the thumb injury claim but disputed the mental injury's compensability and Mr. Turner's request for a new panel of physicians. The Court found Mr. Turner unlikely to prove that his thumb required additional treatment or that his employment caused his mental injury (high blood pressure and anxiety), citing insufficient medical evidence. While the Court denied Mr. Turner's requests for benefits and a new physician panel, it referred Advantage Human Resourcing to the Compliance Program for failing to provide a panel of physicians as legally required.

Thumb InjuryMental InjuryExpedited HearingMedical Benefits ClaimPanel of PhysiciansCausation (Medical)Employer Non-ComplianceRight to TreatmentTennessee Workers' Compensation LawPTSD
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carney v. Safeco Insurance Co.

Plaintiff William E. Carney, a custom wood furniture maker, sustained a ninety percent permanent partial disability to his left thumb following an industrial accident while employed by Shamrock Cabinets, Inc. His worker's compensation insurance carrier, Safeco Insurance Company, appealed the trial court's award of benefits for disability to the entire thumb, arguing that the injury, an amputation of the thumb's tip, should be limited to scheduled benefits for the loss of the first phalange. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, reiterating the rule that an injury to a part of a member can lead to a finding of industrial disability to the entire member, thereby entitling the employee to benefits for the whole member. The Court denied the motion for damages for frivolous appeal.

Worker's CompensationThumb InjuryPermanent Partial DisabilityScheduled InjuryAmputationIndustrial AccidentIndustrial ManagementWoodworkingDexterity ImpairmentMedical Evaluation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Pedro v. Liberty Lines Express

The claimant, a mechanic, sustained an injury resulting in the amputation of his right thumb. The Workers’ Compensation Board determined this constituted a 50% schedule loss of the use of his right hand and awarded benefits. The employer appealed this decision, arguing that the injury was exclusively to the thumb and that the Workers’ Compensation Law does not explicitly allow for a single digit loss to be compensated as a partial loss of hand function. The court adopted a flexible approach, asserting that schedule allowances should not be deemed exclusive when treating a smaller member's loss as a percentage of a larger member's loss. Based on the testimony of the Board’s principal medical examiner, who stated the thumb injury diminished the prehensile function of the entire right hand, the court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers’ CompensationSchedule LossThumb AmputationRight Hand InjuryPrehensile FunctionAppellate ReviewMedical TestimonyInjury CompensationStatutory InterpretationDisability Benefits
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 93 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