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

Baker v. Lockheed Aircraft Service Co.

Harvey Baker sued Lockheed Aircraft Service Company and Bob Savage for breach of an alleged employment contract for a position in Iran. Baker claimed he accepted an oral offer, which Lockheed later withdrew, citing unsatisfactory reference checks as a condition precedent. The jury found that Lockheed's revocation was based on information from these checks. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the written offer was tentative and subject to contingencies. The court emphasized that the statute of frauds required a complete written memorandum, and the parol evidence rule prevented converting a conditional written agreement into an unconditional oral one. Plaintiff failed to prove the satisfaction of the condition precedent.

Breach of ContractEmployment AgreementCondition PrecedentStatute of FraudsParol Evidence RuleContractual DisputeAppellate ReviewJury VerdictOffer of EmploymentWithdrawal of Offer
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Texas Employment Commission

Imelda Martinez, a former Vice President of Fraud Investigations for the Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund (Fund), was terminated and offered a three-month severance package. The termination memorandum conditioned the severance only on returning company equipment and documents. However, she was verbally informed that the severance was also contingent on signing a "Full and Complete Settlement and Release Agreement." Martinez complied with the written condition but did not sign the release. The Fund subsequently refused to pay severance, leading Martinez to file a wage claim with the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) under the Texas Payday Law. The TEC ruled in favor of Martinez, stating that the oral condition was unenforceable as it contradicted the written agreement. The Fund then sought judicial review in the District Court in Kleberg County, which granted summary judgment to the TEC. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the oral condition precedent was inconsistent with the written agreement and therefore invalid, upholding Martinez's entitlement to severance pay.

Severance PayEmployment LawWage DisputeTexas Payday LawContract InterpretationCondition PrecedentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWritten Agreement
References
9
Case No. 2016-08-0769
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2018

Peppers, Joseph v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corp.

This appeal addresses a trial court's decision to deny an employee's attorney the ability to present an offer of proof regarding a purported oral settlement agreement. The agreement concerned an employer's subrogation lien against an employee's third-party tortfeasor settlement, stemming from a work-related motor vehicle accident. The employee's counsel argued for a waiver of the lien in exchange for waiving permanent disability benefits, but no written agreement was finalized or approved by a judge. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's exclusion of the evidence, citing the statutory requirement for judicial approval for all workers' compensation settlements to be binding. The Board concluded that any error in denying the offer of proof was harmless, as no binding agreement existed without proper execution and judicial sanction.

Workers' CompensationSubrogation lienSettlement agreementOffer of proofAdmissibility of evidenceTennessee Rules of EvidencePermanent disability benefitsThird-party tortfeasorOral agreementJudicial approval
References
7
Case No. 07-10-0515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2011

in Re: L. J. Jackson, Relator

Charles and Cherie Robison (Relators) filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging three trial court orders in their personal injury and a severed contract cause of action against West Star Transportation, Inc. The core legal issue revolved around the enforceability of a disputed oral settlement agreement under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The appellate court ruled that an oral acceptance of a written settlement offer, even with subsequent fax confirmation, does not satisfy Rule 11's requirement for a written agreement, drawing parallels to the Statute of Frauds. The court found that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Robisons' motion for partial summary judgment on West Star's breach of contract claim. Citing significant delays and legal implications, the court determined there was no adequate remedy by appeal and conditionally granted the mandamus. The trial court was ordered to dismiss West Star's contract cause of action, which would then render the orders for severance, abatement, and attorney disqualification moot.

MandamusSettlement AgreementRule 11Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentAttorney DisqualificationAppellate JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionAdequate Remedy by AppealTexas Civil Procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Starks

Defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the third degree and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, stemming from his failure to report workers' compensation benefits while receiving social services benefits. The appellate court first addressed the defendant's Batson challenge regarding a peremptorily excused black juror, affirming the lower court's finding that the prosecutor's explanation was race-neutral. Next, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the grand larceny conviction, noting that the defendant's misrepresentations were material and resulted in an overpayment exceeding $3,000. Additionally, the court rejected claims of abridged confrontation rights, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Finally, the judgment was modified to impose concurrent, rather than consecutive, sentences for the grand larceny and false instrument for filing convictions, and as modified, affirmed.

Grand LarcenyFalse Instrument for FilingSocial Services Benefits FraudWorkers' Compensation OverpaymentBatson ChallengeJuror Peremptory ChallengeSufficiency of EvidenceConfrontation Clause RightsProsecutorial MisconductIneffective Assistance of Counsel
References
23
Case No. ADJ6884562
Regular
Oct 04, 2010

ERIC KRUSE vs. CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, Permissibly Self-Insured

This case concerns whether a 15% reduction in permanent disability indemnity applies when an employer offers an injured employee regular work after their condition is permanent and stationary. The applicant, a parking enforcement officer, sustained a neck and elbow injury and was temporarily disabled before returning to his regular job. The employer offered regular work after the applicant's condition became permanent and stationary, but the applicant had already returned to his normal duties. The majority found that since there was no indication of permanent disability prior to the employer's offer, all permanent indemnity was payable after the offer, entitling the employer to the reduction. However, a dissenting commissioner argued that the offer lacked practical meaning as the applicant had already returned to work and that no weekly payments remained after the offer to be reduced.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardEric KruseCity of San Rafaelparking enforcement officerindustrial injuryneck injuryright elbow injurytemporary total disabilitypermanent and stationaryoffer of regular work
References
0
Case No. 01-15-00408-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

in Re Joseph Andre Davis

Joseph Andre Davis, the Appellant, filed a motion for clarification, rehearing, and rehearing en banc with the First Court of Appeals in Houston, Texas. The motion challenges a prior per curiam affirmance concerning a case involving Floyd D. Lopez (Appellee). Davis argues that the court misapprehended critical facts and law, particularly regarding subject matter jurisdiction, the standing of the maternal grandparents for managing conservatorship, and the alleged violation of his fundamental parental rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He requests a written opinion and certification of questions to the Texas Supreme Court, emphasizing the significant precedential implications of the court's decision on parental liberty interests and the uniformity of legal precedents.

Appellate ProcedureMotion for RehearingRehearing En BancPer Curiam AffirmanceParental RightsGrandparent ConservatorshipSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingDue ProcessFourteenth Amendment
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 1995

People v. Ravenell

A defendant, formerly a parking meter service worker for the New York City Department of Transportation, was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of petit larceny and three counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree. The defendant appealed, arguing that the collection reports and equipment sign-out sheets did not constitute written instruments

Criminal lawFalse instrumentPetit larcenyPenal LawPublic servantDepartment of TransportationEmbezzlementConvictionAffirmationAppellate procedure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2006

People v. Niver

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree, welfare fraud in the fourth degree, and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, all stemming from her failure to report income while receiving public assistance benefits. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of her speedy trial motion, the legal sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions, particularly regarding the value of property wrongfully taken and intent to defraud, and several evidentiary rulings by the County Court. The court found no speedy trial violation, concluding that only 173 days were chargeable to the People. The court also determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions, noting witness testimony on overpayment exceeding $1,000 and the defendant's failure to disclose workers' compensation income. The various evidentiary rulings, including those related to the Molineux application and business records, were upheld. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Grand LarcenyWelfare FraudFalse Instrument for FilingSpeedy Trial ViolationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceIntent to DefraudEvidentiary RulingsMolineux ApplicationBusiness Records ExceptionCriminal Procedure Law
References
14
Case No. ADJ11825976
Regular
Dec 11, 2020

THOMAS SZCESZINSKI vs. BUTLER CHEMICALS, SEDGWICK CMS - STATE FARM (3241)

This case concerns an injured worker, Thomas Szceszinski, and his employer, Butler Chemicals. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration. The employer's duty to provide a claim form arose when the employer received written notice of the injury through the employee's resignation letter and subsequent verbal report, which the employer failed to comply with. The Board upheld the award of temporary disability indemnity, reasoning that the employer's failure to offer modified work meant the employee's resignation, due to work-related pain, did not negate his entitlement to benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5401Knowledge of InjuryClaim Form DWC 1Temporary Total DisabilityHealing PeriodPermanent and StationaryModified WorkWage Loss Basis
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 1,277 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