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

Camphill Village, U. S. A., Inc. v. Workmen's Compensation Board

This case concerns an appeal from a determination by the Workmen's Compensation Board, which found a nonprofit membership corporation, operating as a mental institution providing rehabilitation for the mentally handicapped, subject to the Disability Benefits Law. The central issue was whether 'co-workers' assisting handicapped individuals were considered employees, despite receiving no direct salary. The Board concluded that the provision of necessities like housing, food, and benefits such as Blue Cross and Workmen’s Compensation constituted wages, acting as a quid pro quo for their services. The court affirmed this decision, ruling that the co-workers earned their livelihood through their activities for the appellant and did not qualify for statutory exemptions for volunteers or professionals under the Workmen's Compensation Law.

Disability Benefits LawWorkmen's Compensation LawEmployment StatusCo-workersNonprofit CorporationMental InstitutionWagesVolunteersEmployee DefinitionFringe Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Andujar v. More Candy Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding the calculation of a claimant’s average weekly wage following a compensable accident on September 14, 1971. The claimant, a four-day, 10-hour-per-day worker since December 15, 1970, had their average weekly wage computed using a 260 multiple under Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, with the Board affirming the Referee’s decision based on the claimant being a 'full-time worker'. The appellate court found that subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 14 could not apply as they are restricted to five-day workers, and that only subdivision 3 was applicable. The court determined that using a 260 multiple merely because the claimant was a 'full-time worker' lacked statutory basis and support in the record. Consequently, the decision was reversed and the matter remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for proper computation of a multiple pursuant to subdivision 3, recognizing the claimant's status as a four-day worker to ensure compensation reflects their true wage-earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation LawAverage Weekly WageWage Calculation260 MultipleFour-Day Work WeekFull-Time WorkerStatutory InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceRemittalAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. 03-03-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2003

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Leonard D. Watts v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Leonard D. Watts/Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves a cross-appeal stemming from a workers' compensation claim by Leonard D. Watts, who sought lifetime income benefits for injuries sustained as a truck driver. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (appeals panel) initially reversed a hearing officer's decision and awarded Watts benefits, but this decision was later set aside by a Travis County district court. In this appeal, the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund (Texas Mutual) and the Commission challenged the district court's ruling. The Court of Appeals addressed arguments regarding the appeals panel's statutory authority for factual-sufficiency review and the interpretation of "issue" under the labor code, including legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court ultimately reversed the judgment of the district court, thereby affirming the decision of the Commission's appeals panel which granted Watts lifetime income benefits.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsAppeals Panel ReviewFactual SufficiencyStatutory AuthorityCross-AppealRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelCausationMaximum Medical Improvement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travelers Insurance Co. v. Knight

The case concerns an appeal in a Texas Workmen’s Compensation case regarding E. J. Knight, an oil field worker injured in New Mexico while employed by Gene McCutchin. The central issue was whether Knight was covered under the extraterritorial provisions of the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Act, despite his injury occurring out-of-state. The employer, McCutchin, maintained his primary business operations, including payroll and tax reporting, from Dallas County, Texas. The jury found Knight to be a Texas Employee under his original contract of hire, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court emphasized a liberal construction of the Workmen’s Compensation Statutes and ruled that the place where the contract of hiring took place is not the sole determining factor for extraterritorial coverage.

Extraterritorial CoverageTexas LawNew Mexico InjuryEmployment ContractOil Field WorkerEmployee StatusJurisdictionAppellate ReviewJury VerdictAffirmed Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 1972

Claim of Palmer v. Candies

This case concerns an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision, filed May 12, 1972, and amended October 11, 1972. The central issue was the use of the appropriate multiplier for compensation benefits under subdivisions 1, 2, and 3 of section 14 of the Workmen's Compensation Law, specifically challenging the Board's use of a 245 multiplier under subdivision 3. The employer's factory closed three months annually, leading the claimant to work approximately 167 days in the preceding year. The Board concluded that neither subdivision 1 nor 2 applied, prompting the resort to subdivision 3. The appellants contended that subdivision 3's 200-day multiplier was a maximum, a contention rejected by the court, which clarified that 200 is a minimum. The decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawWage CalculationMultiplierSection 14Subdivision 3Appellate ReviewCompensation BenefitsSeasonal EmploymentDaily MultiplierLegal Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Texas Steel Erection Co.

The appellant, a workmen's compensation insurance carrier, sued the appellee, a subscriber under the workmen's compensation law, to recover premiums on workmen's compensation and liability insurance policies. The central issue was the proper classification of employees for premium calculation, particularly for work done in Colorado. The appellant reclassified employees to a higher-rated "iron and steel erection" due to the appellee's alleged failure to provide sufficient payroll records, while the appellee argued for "millwright work" classification and sought an offset for overcharged premiums. The jury found the work was "millwright work." The court affirmed the lower court's judgment, stating that the appellant failed to prove employees were doing the more hazardous work to justify the higher classification and had waived this finding by not requesting the issue.

Workmen's Compensation InsuranceInsurance PremiumsEmployee ClassificationMillwright WorkIron and Steel ErectionPayroll RecordsTexas Insurance CodeJury VerdictAccord and SatisfactionWaiver of Finding
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travelers Insurance Company v. Creyke

R. C. Creyke sustained an accidental injury on July 26, 1965, while employed by Todd Shipyards Corporation, leading to permanent partial incapacity and medical expenses. A jury awarded him workmen's compensation and medical expenses. The Travelers Insurance Company appealed the decision, alleging that the trial court erred by excluding 'defendant's exhibit No. 3,' a Memorandum of Informal Conference. This exhibit was intended to highlight inconsistencies in Creyke's prior claims under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act versus the State Workmen's Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the exhibit was properly excluded due to its broad and unspecific offer, containing parts irrelevant to the specific inquiry at hand.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureEvidence ExclusionHearsayImpeachmentFederal Compensation ActState Compensation ActInjury LocationInconsistent StatementsTrial Court Judgment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Red Cross v. Hinson

This case concerns a widow's claim for workmen's compensation following her husband's accidental death during flood relief work for the American Red Cross in 1937. The employee drowned when a boat overturned on what the trial court determined were 'overflowed lands'. The defendants contested the jurisdiction, arguing the incident occurred on navigable waters, placing it under federal maritime law, specifically the Federal Longshoremen and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act or the Jones Act, rather than Tennessee's state compensation statute. Both the trial court and the Supreme Court affirmed that the accident's location was indeed overflowed land, not regularly navigable waters. Therefore, the state's workmen's compensation law was applicable, and the judgment in favor of the petitioner was affirmed.

Workmen's CompensationNavigable WatersMaritime LawState JurisdictionFederal JurisdictionDrowning AccidentFlood Relief WorkOverflowed LandsScope of EmploymentTennessee Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coe v. House Inside, Ltd.

The claimant appealed decisions by the Workmen's Compensation Board regarding accidental injuries. She suffered injuries in 1967 from a fall on her employer's truck and filed both a compensation claim and a negligence action. The Board decided the compensation claim despite her request to delay, which subsequently barred her civil suit. An initial appeal to this court was dismissed, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remitted the case. This court now finds that the fundamental issue of the Board's refusal to withhold its decision, and whether it was arbitrary, must be resolved before reaching the merits. Consequently, the decision is reversed, and the matter is remitted to the Workmen's Compensation Board for further proceedings to develop the record on this specific issue.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewJurisdictionCivil Action BarRemandArbitrary DecisionClaimant's RightsBoard DiscretionProcedural IssueScope of Employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feathers v. Duncan

This is a workmen's compensation action addressing whether an injured worker was an employee or a casual worker under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The appellant, a carpenter, was hired by the appellee, Jordan Carpet Service, to remodel a building. The appellant sustained an injury from a fall during this work. The chancellor found the appellant to be a casual worker, as the remodeling was not within the usual course of the appellee's carpet business. The Supreme Court affirmed the chancellor's decision, emphasizing that the remodeling project was a small, temporary undertaking, not indicative of the appellee engaging in a secondary contracting business.

Casual WorkerWorkmen's Compensation ActEmployee StatusScope of EmploymentRemodeling WorkEmployer's BusinessStatutory DefinitionCarpentry WorkInjury at WorkConstruction Business
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 26,809 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