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. 03-15-00341-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Antioch St. Johns Cemetery Company D/B/A American Memorial Park, Grand Prairie, Texas Gerald Weatherall And Beverly Randall-Weatherall v. Texas Department of Banking Commissioner

This appellate brief argues that the appellants, Antioch St. Johns Cemetery Company, Gerald Weatherall, and Beverly Randall-Weatherall, failed to preserve their arguments for judicial review by submitting an insufficiently definite motion for rehearing. The brief contends that the Commissioner's Final Order, which imposed a $56,000 administrative penalty against the cemetery company and Gerald Weatherall for numerous violations of the Texas Health and Safety Code Chapters 711 and 712, was supported by substantial evidence. It highlights a pattern of willful disregard for the law by Gerald Weatherall in operating the perpetual care cemetery, citing poor record-keeping, inadequate maintenance, and operation without a corporate charter or certificate of authority. The appellee, the Texas Department of Banking Commissioner, requests the Third Court of Appeals to affirm the Travis County District Court's judgment upholding the administrative order.

Administrative LawAppellate ReviewCemetery RegulationPerpetual CareTexas Department of BankingRegulatory ViolationsCorporate ShieldingIndividual LiabilitySubstantial Evidence ReviewMotion for Rehearing
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Stigger

This worker's compensation case concerns an appeal by Standard Fire, the carrier, against a judgment rendered in favor of Stigger, the claimant, by a county court at law of Dallas County. The Industrial Accident Board initially awarded Stigger $2,377.62, but after a jury trial initiated by Standard Fire to set aside the award, the court rendered a judgment for Stigger in the amount of $34,692.21. Standard Fire appealed, arguing that the trial court exceeded its jurisdictional limits and erred in not reducing the judgment to conform to Stigger's pleadings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that once jurisdiction is lawfully acquired, subsequent events do not defeat it, and a court can grant complete relief even if the judgment exceeds the initial jurisdictional limits, especially in worker's compensation cases.

Worker's CompensationJurisdiction LimitsCounty Court at LawAmount in ControversyAppellate ReviewTexas Civil StatutesJudicial EconomyPleading ConformityDisability BenefitsIndustrial Accident Board
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commercial Standard Insurance Company v. Villa

Lonardo Villa filed a workmen's compensation case against Commercial Standard Insurance Company seeking benefits for total and permanent incapacity resulting from an employment injury. The jury found in favor of Villa, a decision upheld by the trial court, prompting an appeal from the insurance company. Appellant Commercial Standard raised multiple points of error, primarily challenging the method of calculating Villa's wage rate and the finding of permanent disability. The appellate court examined the sufficiency of evidence regarding the wage rate determination under Article 8309 and the medical testimony supporting Villa's permanent incapacity. Concluding that all points raised by the appellant lacked merit, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workmen's CompensationTotal Permanent IncapacityWage Rate CalculationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityMedical EvidenceProcedural ErrorStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilk v. Standard Fire Insurance Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Wilk & Flint, attorneys representing beneficiaries in a workers' compensation death benefits claim, against The Standard Fire Insurance Company. Wilk & Flint challenged the trial court's award of attorney's fees in periodic payments, arguing that Texas Workers' Compensation statute, article 8306, section 8(d), mandates a lump sum payment when the insurance company disputes liability. The Standard Fire Insurance Company had initially disputed liability, leading to the lawsuit, before seeking to make periodic payments for both benefits and attorney's fees. The appellate court agreed with Wilk & Flint, reversing the portion of the trial court's judgment regarding periodic attorney's fees and remanding for a lump sum determination, while affirming the rest of the judgment.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesLump Sum PaymentPeriodic PaymentsStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppellate ReviewInsurance LiabilityDeath BenefitsRemand
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Standard Register Co.

This retaliatory discharge case revolves around Ms. Anderson, an employee who was terminated by her employer, Standard, due to a facially neutral absence control policy after sustaining a work-related injury and being absent for over 26 weeks. Ms. Anderson subsequently filed a lawsuit, alleging that her discharge was in retaliation for asserting a workers' compensation claim. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding no direct evidence of retaliatory intent and upholding the neutral absence policy. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed these judgments, concluding that the employer's policy did not constitute a 'device' to circumvent workers' compensation obligations and that the plaintiff failed to establish a causal link between her claim and her termination.

Retaliatory dischargeAbsence control policyWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentCausal relationshipEmployment-at-willPublic policy exceptionSubstantial factor testNeutral policyDisability benefits
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton v. Standard Oil Co.

Libellants, seamen aboard the S.S. Beacon, initiated an in personam suit against the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, seeking to recover half of their wages which were withheld by the respondent. The seamen departed the vessel in Galveston, Texas, after completing a voyage from Boston, citing a strike and the expiration of their collective bargaining agreement with the National Maritime Union as justification. However, the court determined that the libellants had no lawful excuse for leaving the ship, as there was no danger to their safety or future employment, nor a binding custom permitting early departure. Consequently, the court found the libellants to be deserters and ruled that they forfeited their wages, rendering a judgment in favor of the respondent.

Seamen's WagesDesertionMaritime LawShipping ArticlesCollective BargainingLabor DisputeContract InterpretationForfeiture of WagesEmployer LiabilityVoyage Agreement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Standard Acc. Ins. v. Stanaland

Raymond Stanaland, an employee of Hubbard-Miller Construction Company, sustained total blindness after being shot by his foreman, S. P. Johnson, at the company's office tent where employees collected wages. Stanaland had gone to the tent to receive an advance on his pay. The Standard Accident Insurance Company, the employer's insurer, sought to overturn an award made by the State Industrial Accident Board, leading to a district court judgment in Stanaland's favor. On appeal, the Insurance Company contended the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the injury was compensable, emphasizing that it resulted from hazardous conditions allowed by the employer at a required work-related location. However, the court reformed the judgment to exclude an unauthorized award of interest.

Workers' CompensationWorkplace InjuryAccidental ShootingEmployer NegligenceCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentHazardous ConditionsHorseplayStatutory InterpretationLiberal Construction
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Morgan

Jimmie Morgan was injured while working for Jim Walters Homes, leading to a workers' compensation claim against their insurer, The Standard Fire Insurance Company. Morgan sought additional compensation and medical benefits, resulting in a jury award. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the findings of good cause for Morgan's late claim filing and upheld the calculation of her average weekly wage and compensation benefits. However, the Court reversed the appellate court's decision regarding prejudgment interest on medical expenses, ruling that such interest is not recoverable under the Workers' Compensation Act.

Workers' CompensationPrejudgment InterestMedical ExpensesTimely ClaimGood CauseAverage Weekly WageTexas LawInsurance ClaimAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 1997

Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Stephenson

The Standard Fire Insurance Company appealed a judgment where a jury found it breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing by denying and delaying payment of a death benefits claim to Joy Lenderman Stephenson, widow of Douglas Stephenson, under the Texas Workers Compensation Act. The appellate court initially reformed the judgment, deleting exemplary damages and DTPA attorney's fees, while affirming other aspects. However, following a joint motion, the court vacated its own judgment and the trial court's judgment without reference to the merits. The cause was remanded to the trial court for entry of an agreed take-nothing judgment in accordance with a settlement agreement between the parties. The court's original opinion of October 30, 1997, was released for publication despite the vacation of the judgments.

Bad faith insuranceWorkers' compensation death benefitsMental anguish damagesExemplary damagesAttorney's feesDuty of good faith and fair dealingLegal sufficiency of evidenceFactual sufficiency of evidenceDTPA claimHeart attack causation
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arias v. DURO STANDARD PRODUCTS CO.

The employee, Aisia Arias, sought workers’ compensation benefits alleging occupational asthma due to workplace dust exposure at Duro Standard Products. The trial court admitted an independent medical evaluation report from Dr. Thurman as a business record and awarded benefits. The employer appealed, contending that the report was inadmissible and that Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-235 was the exclusive method for introducing medical evidence. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed that section 50-6-235 is not exclusive but found that Dr. Thurman's report, prepared for litigation, lacked the inherent trustworthiness required for the business records exception under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 803(6). Consequently, with the report excluded, the remaining evidence was deemed insufficient to establish causation or permanency. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the trial court's judgment and dismissed the complaint.

occupational asthmaworkers' compensation benefitsmedical report admissibilityhearsay exceptionbusiness records exceptionindependent medical evaluationcausation in workers' comppermanent partial impairmentTennessee Rules of Evidencestatutory interpretation
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 1,796 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