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

Jackson v. Golden Eagle Archery, Inc.

Chief Justice Walker dissents from the majority's decision to declare Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 327(b) unconstitutional. He argues that Rule 327(b) is not in fatal conflict with the Texas Constitution when properly construed in conjunction with Rule 327(a). Walker contends that the trial court correctly distinguished between jury deliberations and juror misconduct during voir dire, with Rule 327(a) allowing evidence of the latter. The dissent criticizes prior judicial interpretations that overly expand the definition of "jury deliberations," thereby improperly restricting the admission of evidence concerning juror bias during voir dire, which hinders a fair trial. Furthermore, the dissent questions the majority's constitutional challenge, stating that Rule 327(b) was not implicated in the trial court's decision regarding juror Maxwell's voir dire misconduct.

Constitutional LawCivil ProcedureJury MisconductVoir DireTexasDissenting OpinionRule 327(b) TRCPRule 327(a) TRCPJuror BiasMotion for New Trial
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Munoz v. Berne Group, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by employee Blanca Munoz against her employer, The Berne Group, Inc., a non-subscriber to workers' compensation, after a jury verdict favored the employer in a personal injury claim. Munoz appealed two points of error: the trial court's failure to submit a requested jury instruction on the employer's duty to provide a safe workplace, and the court allowing the jury panel to hear a verdict from another similar case during voir dire. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It ruled that Munoz failed to preserve the jury instruction error and did not demonstrate actual harm from the voir dire incident, thus overruling both points of error.

Personal InjuryEmployer Non-SubscriberAppellate ProcedureJury InstructionsVoir DirePreservation of ErrorAbuse of DiscretionSafe Workplace DutyTexas AppealsCivil Procedure
References
9
Case No. 13-00-785-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2002

Josephine De La Garza v. George H. Beckett

Appellant Josephine De La Garza appealed a jury verdict awarding her personal injury damages resulting from an automobile accident. She raised five issues on appeal, including alleged errors in limiting voir dire, refusing expert witness testimony, denying a jury instruction regarding the transportation code, and challenging the factual and legal sufficiency of medical damages and comparative responsibility findings. She also contested the denial of her motion for new trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no abuse of discretion in the voir dire limits, that the expert witness error was not preserved, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on damages and comparative responsibility.

Automobile AccidentPersonal InjuryVoir Dire LimitationExpert Witness ExclusionMedical Damages SufficiencyJury Instruction ErrorNegligence Per SeComparative ResponsibilityMotion for New TrialAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halprin v. State

Appellant, one of the "Texas Seven" prison escapees, was convicted of capital murder for the killing of a police officer during a robbery and sentenced to death. On appeal, he raised nineteen points of error, including claims that the trial court improperly excluded mitigating evidence, erroneously denied challenges for cause to veniremembers, and allowed improper commitment questions during voir dire. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the exclusion of mitigating evidence was not an abuse of discretion as it was hearsay and cumulative. The court also determined that any error in denying challenges for cause or permitting certain voir dire questions was harmless, as the appellant still had peremptory challenges available and the questions were not improper commitment questions.

Capital MurderPrison EscapeRobberyMitigating EvidenceHearsayBusiness Records ExceptionVoir DirePeremptory ChallengesCommitment QuestionsAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Motorists Insurance Co. v. Sells

James Sells was initially awarded workers' compensation benefits for temporary total incapacity. Following Sells' motion, the district court granted a new trial based on allegations of jury misconduct and other errors. The subsequent second trial found Sells suffered both temporary total and permanent partial incapacity. American Motorists appealed, challenging the district court's decision to grant a new trial and an alleged error during voir dire where Sells' counsel mentioned the duration of compensation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no reversible error in either the new trial grant or the voir dire statement, and denied Sells' cross-point for frivolous appeal damages.

Workers' CompensationNew TrialAppellate ReviewJury MisconductVoir DireAbuse of DiscretionHarmless ErrorPlenary PowerAppellate ProcedureTrial Errors
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Truck Insurance Exchange v. Smetak

Roman Smetak, a carpenter, sustained an ankle injury at work on December 14, 1999, which later developed into cellulitis and osteomyelitis from an MRSA infection. Truck Insurance Exchange (TIE), the workers' compensation carrier for Smetak's employer Levacy Construction, challenged the compensability of the injury, its extension to the infections, and Smetak's resulting disability. After administrative and district court rulings in Smetak's favor, TIE appealed to this court, also alleging juror prejudice during voir dire. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient legal and factual evidence to support the jury's findings regarding the compensable injury, its extent, and Smetak's disability. It also concluded that any harm from the voir dire comments was cured by the trial court's instructions.

Workers' Compensation AppealCompensable InjuryCourse and Scope of EmploymentCellulitisOsteomyelitisMRSA InfectionSufficiency of EvidenceLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyVoir Dire
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Beattie

This is an appeal from a judgment in a worker’s compensation case where the appellee, Heriberto Beattie, was found to have suffered permanent and total incapacity. The appellant, Texas Employers Insurance Association, challenged the judgment, alleging denial of its constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. The core of the appeal concerned the jury selection process, where three jurors from a prior, similar worker's compensation case involving the same defendant and defense counsel were impaneled for the Beattie case. The appellant's motions for continuance, mistrial, to strike the common jurors, and for supplementary voir dire were all denied by the trial court. The appellate court found that the denial of an opportunity for supplementary voir dire to expose potential juror bias, after a timely request, resulted in a denial of the right to a fair and impartial jury. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

worker's compensationjury selectionvoir direjuror biasfair trialdue processTexas Constitutionappellate reviewjudicial discretionreversible error
References
6
Case No. NO. 09-05-001 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2006

Randy D. Greer and Keith D. Johnson v. Samuel Seales

The appellants, Randy D. Greer and Keith D. Johnson, sued Samuel Seales for personal injuries and property damage caused by Seales's alleged negligent operation of a motor vehicle. A jury found the accident was not proximately caused by either driver's negligence, leading to a final judgment for Seales. Appellants appealed, raising four issues concerning the trial court's denial of challenges for cause, the factual sufficiency of the evidence, the submission of an unavoidable accident instruction, and limitations on voir dire time. The Ninth District Court of Appeals at Beaumont affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that no error was preserved for several challenges for cause, the evidence factually supported the jury's verdict, the unavoidable accident instruction was proper given the evidence of sunlight blinding the defendant, and the voir dire time objection was not preserved due to lack of specificity.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentNegligenceJury VerdictAppealVoir DireChallenges for CauseUnavoidable AccidentFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceTrial Procedure
References
30
Case No. 06-01-00090-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2002

Nancy Renee Wright v. State of Texas

Nancy R. Wright pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine after her punishment range was enhanced by two prior felony convictions, resulting in a five-year imprisonment sentence. On appeal, Wright argued the trial court erred by interrupting her voir dire and commenting on her prior criminal record, which she contended led her to plead guilty instead of not guilty. The appellate court found that Wright failed to preserve the issue for review because she did not object to the trial court's statements during the trial. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Criminal AppealDrug PossessionFelony EnhancementJury Voir DireJudicial CommentPreservation of ErrorAppellate JurisdictionDue ProcessSentencing GuidelinesTexas Law
References
6
Case No. 01-11-00258-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2015

Jeremy Thomas v. State

Jeremy Thomas, the appellant, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life confinement in the 177th District Court of Harris County, Texas. This document is the State's appellate brief to the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas, filed on March 26, 2015. The State argues against the appellant's four points of error, which include complaints about a read-back procedure, the denial of a motion to suppress in-court identification, a judge's comment during voir dire, and the denial of a challenge for cause against a juror. The State requests that the conviction be affirmed.

Criminal LawMurderAppealDue ProcessIdentification ProcedureVoir DireJudicial ConductPreservation of ErrorJury SelectionWitness Testimony
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 38 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