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

State v. Binette

Justice Janice M. Holder dissents from the majority's decision, arguing against the adoption of a new de novo standard for reviewing videotaped evidence in this case. She contends that the traditional Tennessee standard of review, which affords a presumption of correctness to trial court factual findings, should apply, even when credibility is an issue in interpreting evidence like videotapes. Holder emphasizes that trial courts possess expertise as fact-finders, a position superior to appellate courts. Based on the trial court's finding of 'fairly significant weaving' and other evidence presented by the officer, she concludes that reasonable suspicion existed for the stop of Binette and would therefore affirm the trial court's decision.

Traffic StopReasonable SuspicionStandard of ReviewVideotaped EvidenceCredibility AssessmentTrial Court FindingsAppellate ReviewDe Novo ReviewDriving While ImpairedJudicial Dissent
References
8
Case No. ADJ2776530
Regular
Aug 07, 2015

AMY SMITH vs. WALTER CLAUDIO SALON & SPA, INC., STATE FARM INSURANCE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration and Removal filed by the applicant, Amy Smith, challenging an order allowing the defendant to submit surveillance videotape evidence to an Agreed Medical Examiner. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order was not a final decision but an interlocutory ruling on evidence. The Appeals Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant. The WCJ's report, adopted by the Board, concluded that the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy while exercising in a public gym and that the videotape was relevant to the claim.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Law JudgeFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
7
Case No. M2002-00123-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2003

State of Tennessee v. William E. McCarver

William E. McCarver was convicted of first-degree premeditated murder in Sequatchie County Circuit Court for fatally shooting his wife's boyfriend. He received a life sentence. On appeal, McCarver challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admissibility of enhanced surveillance videotapes, and the trial court's jury instructions on intent and knowledge. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgment, finding ample evidence for premeditation, no abuse of discretion in admitting the videotapes despite minor errors, and that any deficiency in jury instructions was harmless. The court rejected the diminished capacity argument, stating the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant's medical issues did not preclude premeditation.

Premeditated MurderFirst Degree MurderSufficiency of EvidenceEnhanced VideotapesJury InstructionsDiminished Capacity DefenseSelf-Defense ClaimAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureHomicide
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2000

Claim of De Marco v. Millbrook Equestrian Center

A claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which denied his request to compel his employer and its workers’ compensation carrier to produce surveillance videotape evidence prior to his testimony. The claimant sustained a work-related back injury in 1995 and had been receiving benefits. The carrier contested further benefits, alleging fraud, and sought to introduce a surveillance videotape. The Board ruled that while the carrier must disclose the existence of the video, it was not required to provide it before the claimant's cross-examination. The claimant argued that CPLR discovery rules mandated pre-testimony disclosure. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that the Workers’ Compensation Board is not bound by the CPLR's discovery rules, as per Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 111, 118, and 142 (3), which grant the Board authority over disclosure and exempt it from common law or statutory rules of evidence.

Workers' CompensationDiscoverySurveillance VideotapeCPLR 3101(i)Workers' Compensation BoardEvidentiary RulesDisclosure ObligationFraud AllegationClaimant TestimonyAppellate Review
References
2
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
Apr 27, 2007

Barone v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the plaintiff sued IESI, Inc., after falling on a sidewalk. A key piece of evidence, a surveillance videotape of the incident, went missing during discovery, leading the plaintiff to move for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence. The Supreme Court of Kings County initially precluded IESI, Inc. from offering certain evidence at trial. However, the appellate court modified this decision, finding that a negative inference charge at trial was a more appropriate sanction for the missing evidence, and affirmed the order as modified.

Personal InjurySpoliation of EvidenceNegative Inference ChargeSurveillance VideoDiscovery SanctionAppellate ReviewKings CountyCivil ProcedureEvidence LawTorts
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 1998

People v. Davis

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree after a jury trial in Broome County, stemming from a 1997 robbery of a Giant Market where he was accused of aiding and abetting the actual robber. The defendant appealed, challenging the conviction on grounds of legal sufficiency and the weight of the evidence. The appellate court reviewed the circumstantial evidence presented at trial, including witness testimonies and physical evidence found at the defendant's apartment. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that a rational trier of fact could find the defendant an accomplice and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. A procedural issue concerning the jury's request to replay a surveillance videotape was also addressed, but deemed unpreserved for appellate review.

RobberyFirst DegreeAccompliceCircumstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceJury DeliberationsProcedural ErrorPreservation Rule
References
12
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,088 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