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
Dec 16, 1998

In re the Claim of Eveland

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. The claimant resigned after a verbal argument with a co-worker, who was the owner's nephew, and after being informed that this co-worker would assume more responsibilities and become her supervisor. The Court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision, affirming that dissatisfaction with a supervisor or conflict with a co-worker does not constitute good cause for leaving employment.

Voluntary QuitUnemployment InsuranceGood Cause for Leaving EmploymentWorkplace DisputeSupervisor ConflictAdministrative AppealBenefit DisqualificationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionLabor Relations
References
2
Case No. 2023-05-2463
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2024

Payne, Ian-Chanel v. Signet Jewelers

The Court held an Expedited Hearing to determine if Ms. Payne's mental injury arose primarily out of her employment, entitling her to medical and temporary disability benefits. Ms. Payne, a sales associate for Signet Jewelers, experienced increased anxiety after a verbal altercation with a coworker, Storm Thomas, following a written warning from her manager. Despite being instructed not to, Ms. Payne confronted Ms. Thomas, leading to a heated dispute. The Court found that Ms. Payne failed to prove that the altercation was an "extraordinary and unusual" mental stimulus required by statute, as she initiated the confrontation and arguments are common in the workplace. Therefore, the Court denied her claim for benefits, ruling that she was unlikely to prove her mental injury arose primarily out of a work-related event.

Mental InjuryWorkplace AltercationAnxiety AggravationExpedited HearingDenial of BenefitsWorkers' Compensation ClaimsSudden or Unusual Mental StimulusEmployee ConfrontationPrimary CausePreexisting Condition
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grand Union Co. v. Mercado

Martha Mailloux, a female frozen food selector, filed an age and gender discrimination charge against her employer (petitioner) with the State Division of Human Rights (DHR) in 1991, alleging verbal and physical harassment by co-workers. This culminated in a physical assault in October 1990, leading her to cease working due to injuries. DHR found the employer guilty of discrimination and ordered back pay and damages. The employer initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding for judicial review, arguing prompt remedial action and that workers' compensation benefits precluded the discrimination claim. The Court found substantial evidence supporting DHR's determination that the employer condoned the hostile work environment through inaction and rejected the workers' compensation preclusion argument. Consequently, DHR's determination was confirmed, and the employer's petition was dismissed.

Gender DiscriminationAge DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentEmployer CondonationWorkplace HarassmentAdministrative ReviewWorkers' Compensation OffsetExecutive Law ProceedingHuman Rights LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Railway & Terminal Company v. Tucker

This negligence case revolves around the death of E. E. Tucker, a passenger who was forcibly ejected from a street car by its operator, Robert Talley. Following a verbal dispute where Tucker used abusive language, Talley attempted to remove him, leading to a scuffle during which Tucker was struck and fell, sustaining fatal injuries. Mrs. E. E. Tucker, the widow, sued for negligence. The jury found that the operator used excessive force and failed to exercise a high degree of care, leading to Tucker's death. They awarded damages to Mrs. Tucker, which the trial court reduced through remittitur. The defendant appealed on four points, challenging the jury instructions on the duty of care, alleged improper jury arguments, and the excessiveness of damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the finding of negligence, the damages, and dismissing the appellant's other contentions.

NegligenceWrongful DeathExcessive ForceAssault and BatteryCommon Carrier LiabilityPassenger EjectionDuty of CareJury InstructionsDamagesRemittitur
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Transportation Insurance Co. v. Franco

Guillermo Franco, an employee of Tri-State Feed Yards, was injured and filed a workers' compensation claim. His first attorney presented a settlement proposal from Transportation Insurance Company, Tri-State's carrier, which Franco verbally refused. However, the attorney had Franco, who is illiterate, sign papers that accepted the settlement and then forged Franco's endorsement on the settlement check. The Industrial Accident Board (IAB) approved the agreement despite being notified that Franco had hired a new attorney. Franco's present counsel filed a declaratory judgment action to cancel the agreement due to extrinsic fraud and the IAB's factual mistake. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment voiding the settlement, rejecting Transportation's arguments regarding lack of cause of action, jurisdiction, and statute of limitations. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys' fees to Franco's counsel, deeming the error of awarding directly to counsel (instead of Franco) as harmless.

Workers' CompensationCompromise Settlement AgreementDeclaratory Judgment ActExtrinsic FraudStatute of LimitationsAttorneys' FeesAppellate ReviewHarmless ErrorJurisdictionIlliteracy
References
14
Case No. 09-03-511 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2004

Dan Thomas v. William Bynum & Billy Reese

Dan Thomas, a Texas prison inmate, filed a lawsuit against William Bynum for slander and verbal abuse, and against Billy Reese for failing to investigate claims, committing fraud, denying disciplinary proceeding access, and imposing punitive restrictions. Thomas sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages, attempting to proceed in forma pauperis. The trial court initially granted a no-evidence motion for summary judgment, which was partially reversed and remanded by the Fourth Court of Appeals. Subsequently, the trial court dismissed the case again for Thomas's failure to file a required affidavit detailing prior suits, as mandated by Chapter 14 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code. Thomas appealed this dismissal to the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont, asserting arguments based on res judicata, the law of the case doctrine, lack of prior notice, and an objection to the presence of defense attorneys. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, ruling that res judicata and the law of the case did not apply to the Chapter 14 dismissal and that inmates are not entitled to notice prior to a Section 14.003 dismissal.

Inmate LitigationPro SeSummary JudgmentDismissalAffidavit RequirementCivil Practices and Remedies CodeRes JudicataLaw of the CaseAppellate ProcedureTexas Law
References
10
Case No. 05-12-00223-CR
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2013

Skief, Tiwian Laquinn

Tiwian Laquinn Skief was convicted of murder and sentenced to fifty years in prison. He appealed his conviction, raising four issues, including errors in jury instructions on self-defense, jury contamination, confrontation clause violations, and improper jury argument. The Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found sufficient evidence to support the self-defense limitation instruction, that Skief failed to preserve his argument regarding jury admonishment, and that his confrontation clause rights were not violated by the admission of an excited utterance to a co-worker. Lastly, Skief failed to preserve his argument concerning improper jury argument.

Murder ConvictionSelf-DefenseJury Charge ErrorConfrontation ClauseExcited UtteranceHearsay ExceptionJury ArgumentAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureConstitutional Rights
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1951

Wade v. TEXAS EMPLOYERS'INS. ASS'N

This case concerns a Workmen's Compensation claim filed by Wade et al. against Texas Employers’ Insurance Association following the death of Henry G. Wade, attributed to chlorine gas inhalation during his employment at Dow Chemical Company. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, but the Galveston Court of Civil Appeals reversed and remanded, citing improper closing arguments by the petitioners' counsel. The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the objection to the argument was timely and if the argument's effect was "curable." The Court ultimately found that any potential error in the argument was waived due to the respondent's delay in objecting. Additionally, the Court affirmed the admissibility of Mr. Wade's declarations as res gestae. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and affirmed the original trial court judgment.

Workmen's CompensationIndustrial AccidentChlorine Gas InhalationBronchial PneumoniaClosing ArgumentJury ArgumentWaiver of ObjectionCurable ErrorIncurable ErrorRes Gestae
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borgen v. State

The appellant, Borgen, was convicted of sexual abuse, a conviction that the Houston Court of Appeals subsequently reversed due to unobjected-to improper prosecutorial jury argument during the guilt phase of the trial. The State filed a petition for discretionary review, contending that the appellant waived any impropriety by failing to object at trial. This court considered whether the prosecutor's argument was so prejudicial that it constituted reversible error despite the lack of objection or if due process was violated. The court concluded that while the argument was improper, it was not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal without an objection, distinguishing it from cases where an instruction to disregard would not have cured the harm. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for consideration of other grounds of error.

Prosecutorial MisconductJury ArgumentWaiver of ErrorDue ProcessSexual AbuseCriminal LawAppellate ReviewDiscretionary ReviewTexas Court of Criminal AppealsHarmful Error
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Wade

This appeal concerns a workmen's compensation suit initiated by Ettie Mae Wade et al. against Texas Employers Insurance Association, seeking compensation for Henry G. Wade's death, allegedly caused by employment injuries at Dow Chemical Company. A jury found for the appellees, awarding a lump sum. The appellant challenged the admission of hearsay testimony under the res gestae rule and argued improper and inflammatory statements by appellees' counsel during closing arguments. While the court upheld the trial court's discretion on the res gestae issue, it found portions of the closing argument to be prejudicial and improper. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial due to these errors in counsel's argument.

Workmen's CompensationAccidental DeathIndustrial Accident BoardHearsay Rule ExceptionRes GestaeAttorney MisconductClosing ArgumentJury PrejudiceReversible ErrorTrial Court Discretion
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 3,096 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