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. 05-17-01457-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Charles Chang, M.D. v. Ashley Denny

Dr. Charles Chang performed brain surgery on Ashley Denny in 2006, leaving a cotton ball in her brain, which was discovered during a second surgery in 2011. Denny filed a medical liability claim against Dr. Chang in 2013, approximately seven years after the initial surgery and more than two years after discovering the foreign object. The trial court initially dismissed the claims as time-barred but later granted a new trial, where a jury found Dr. Chang negligent and Denny diligent in pursuing her claim. Dr. Chang appealed, challenging the denial of his motion for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto (JNOV) on Denny's open courts defense. The dissenting opinion argues that Denny failed to exercise due diligence as a matter of law, given the 25-month delay in filing suit after discovery, and that her explanations (difficulty helping her lawyer and finding an expert) are insufficient to overcome the statute of limitations. The dissent concludes that the law should be applied neutrally, preventing recovery against Dr. Chang and suggesting Denny's recourse should be against her attorney.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsOpen Courts DoctrineDue DiligenceForeign ObjectSurgical ErrorJury VerdictJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centre Insurance Co. v. Pollitt

Carl Pollitt, an employee, suffered a work-related injury and received workers' compensation benefits from Centre Insurance Company. After reaching statutory maximum medical improvement (MMI) on March 11, 1997, Pollitt underwent multiple spinal surgeries and sought an increased impairment rating, claiming a substantial change in his condition. The trial court granted his motion, increasing his impairment rating to twenty-six percent. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that a substantial change in condition must occur before the statutory MMI date for an impairment rating to be reevaluated. Therefore, the trial court lacked authority to find a substantial change of condition or increase Pollitt's impairment rating, as his alleged change occurred after the statutory MMI date.

Workers' Compensation DisputeImpairment RatingMaximum Medical ImprovementStatutory MMISubstantial Change of ConditionAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionJudicial Review ScopeSpinal SurgeryTexas Workers' Compensation ActIncome Benefits
References
4
Case No. W2016-01817-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2017

Jane Doe v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.

Jane Doe, a hospitality manager at P.F. Chang's, was robbed and raped by a co-worker during closing procedures. Jane and John Doe filed a tort action against P.F. Chang's, which moved for summary judgment, arguing the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. The trial court denied the motion, finding the injuries did not arise out of employment. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed, concluding that the sexual assault was not a risk inherent to Ms. Doe’s employment, thus the exclusive remedy provision of workers' compensation law did not apply, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workplace AssaultSexual AssaultWorkers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DoctrineSummary JudgmentScope of EmploymentCausal ConnectionRobberyTort LawRestaurant Employee
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. Service Lloyds Insurance Co.

Rosa Rodriguez appealed a workers' compensation decision concerning her back injury claim against Service Lloyds Insurance Company. She challenged an impairment rating and maximum medical improvement date, which had been affirmed by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) and its appeals panel due to untimely contestation. At the district court, Rodriguez asserted a 'substantial change of condition' and challenged the standard of review. The trial court ordered her to replead under the 'substantial evidence rule' and drop the 'substantial change of condition' claim. Upon her non-compliance and failure to provide an adequate administrative record, the trial court struck her pleadings and dismissed the case. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the 'substantial change of condition' statutes were inapplicable to her specific challenges at the TWCC, and that she failed to present the required administrative record for review under the 'substantial evidence rule'.

impairment ratingmaximum medical improvementsubstantial change of conditionjudicial reviewadministrative proceduresubstantial evidence rulepleadingsdismissal of actionappellate courtTexas law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 1995

Lopez v. Queen Lace Corp.

Claimant sustained a compensable back injury in March 1975, and his case was closed in August 1978 after a finding of permanent partial disability and an $8,000 lump-sum payment. The case was reopened due to a reported change in medical condition, specifically exacerbation of back and neck pain. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that no unanticipated change in condition had occurred, leading to the case being closed again. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing substantial evidence including negative MRI results and physician testimony, indicating no worsening of the claimant's condition warranting additional benefits.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLump-Sum AdjustmentMedical Condition ChangeBack InjuryNeck Pain ExacerbationMRI ResultsPhysician TestimonyWorkers' Compensation Law § 15 [5-b]Appellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Parietti v. Dellwood Country Club, Inc.

Claimant suffered a compensable back injury in 1965, leading to a permanent partial disability and a $15,000 lump-sum award in 1976. The case was later reopened to assess a change in the claimant's condition, particularly concerning new neck pain, which the carrier argued was previously considered and that the claimant was guilty of laches. The Board found a change in condition, determining the claimant's status had progressed to permanent total disability, a finding supported by medical evidence. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the carrier's awareness of the neck condition and its failure to contest its causal relationship to the industrial accident.

Workers' CompensationLump-sum AwardPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityChange in ConditionMedical EvidenceBack InjuryNeck PainReopened CaseLaches
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2009

Claim of Thomas v. Crucible Materials Corp.

Claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from February 25, 2009, which denied his application to reopen a workers' compensation claim. The claimant had sustained a right shoulder injury in 2002, leading to a 70% schedule loss of use classification in 2003. Although a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially reclassified the claimant with a permanent total disability in 2007 due to worsening condition, the Board reversed this, finding insufficient proof of a significant change in medical condition. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the Board has discretion in reopening cases and that conflicting medical evidence supported the conclusion that no substantial change in the claimant's condition since 2003 had been established, despite arguments regarding deteriorating range of motion and complex regional pain syndrome.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UsePermanent Total DisabilityReopening ClaimMedical EvidenceChange in ConditionBoard DiscretionRotator Cuff InjuryComplex Regional Pain SyndromeAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 531567
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Yi Sun

Claimant Yi Sun appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from August 14, 2020, which denied her request to reopen two workers' compensation claims and seek an increase in benefits. Sun, a former jeweler technician and hotel housekeeper, had established claims in 2002 and 2008 for occupational bronchitis and work-related injuries, respectively, both resulting in permanent partial disabilities. She sought reclassification and emergency assistance due to worsened conditions and exhaustion of indemnity benefits. The Board denied her request, finding insufficient evidence of a material change in condition and untimely filing for an extreme hardship redetermination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the lack of medical documentation to support a change in her condition and her failure to meet the requirements for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3).

Reopening claimsPermanent partial disabilityWage-earning capacityIndemnity benefitsExtreme hardshipReclassificationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewMedical evidenceChange in condition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1982

Claim of Bauman v. Chili Furniture & Appliances, Inc.

This case involves an appeal that reversed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which had discharged the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from liability. The claimant, who suffered the loss of a leg in a 1964 work-related accident, required recurring replacement of his prosthetic device, with medical reports from 1976 and 1978 also indicating an abscess and pressure area on his stump. The Board reopened the case based on these reports, concluding they signified a "change in condition" within three years of the last compensation payment, thereby exempting the Special Fund. However, the Appellate Division determined that the need for prosthesis replacement is a continuing requirement and not a new medical condition for the purposes of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The court further found that the medical reports did not clearly indicate a new or changed condition beyond the claimant's continuing disability. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed for lacking a rational basis, and the matter was remitted for additional proceedings.

Prosthetic Device ReplacementWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aSpecial Fund for Reopened Cases LiabilityChange in ConditionMedical Report InterpretationNotice to BoardContinuing DisabilityAppellate DivisionRemittalAbscess on Stump
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Underwriters, Inc. v. Mendoza

Celedonio Mendoza sustained a back injury on January 22, 1976, while employed by Blount Brothers Corporation. The Industrial Accident Board initially awarded him temporary total disability and permanent partial disability. Mendoza later sought to modify the award based on a 'change of condition,' claiming his physical state had worsened to total incapacity. Although the Board denied his application, a district court jury found in Mendoza's favor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment, concluding that Mendoza's own testimony constituted a judicial admission of total incapacity prior to the initial Board award, thus preventing a finding that a subsequent 'change of condition' caused additional loss in earning capacity. A dissenting opinion argued that the Board's initial award should be considered res judicata regarding Mendoza's condition at that time, and his testimony should not be used to nullify the intent of Article 8306 § 12d.

worker's compensationchange of conditionjudicial admissionres judicatacollateral estoppelearning capacitytotal incapacitypermanent partial disabilityIndustrial Accident Boardappellate procedure
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 5,214 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