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
Sep 19, 1975

Claim of Alperin v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

The claimant, on March 12, 1971, experienced acute heart failure or insufficiency due to excessive work effort, aggravating a pre-existing heart defect caused by a damaged aortic valve. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that a subsequent operation to replace the defective aortic valve and its sequelae were causally related to this work activity. Appellants contested this finding, arguing a lack of substantial evidence. However, the record contained unequivocal medical testimony confirming that the specific work effort caused the condition to become symptomatic, necessitating the operation to alleviate symptoms. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding a clear causal link.

Heart ConditionWork-Related InjuryCausationAortic Valve ReplacementMedical TestimonyPre-existing ConditionWorkers' Compensation AppealSurgical NecessityAggravation of Injury
References
1
Case No. ADJ9065052
Regular
May 13, 2015

MARK SUAREZ vs. COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA

This case involves applicant Mark Suarez, a deputy sheriff, who suffered a heart injury on February 4, 2013. Initially, the WCJ found the injury was due to a congenital condition and not work-related. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Labor Code section 3212.5's "heart trouble" presumption for law enforcement officers applied. The Board determined that while medical evidence indicated a congenital cause, the statute's "anti-attribution" clause prevents rebutting the presumption solely based on a pre-existing condition without evidence of a contemporaneous non-work-related event. Consequently, the Board amended the prior order to find the injury industrially caused, remanding for further proceedings on benefits.

Labor Code section 3212.5heart trouble presumptiondeputy sheriffindustrial injurycongenital conditionaortic stenosisrebuttable presumptionanti-attribution clausenonwork-related eventMuznik
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund v. Martinez

The Texas Workers’ Compensation Insurance Fund (carrier) appealed a summary judgment affirming a ruling by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Appeals Panel. The panel upheld a hearing officer's decision that the carrier waived its opportunity to contest the compensability of Martinez’s injury. Martinez was injured in 1993, and in a 1995 benefit review conference, the carrier agreed in writing to the compensability of his injuries, including his heart condition, and waived the right to dispute it. Later, the carrier attempted to dispute the heart condition, claiming it was a newly discovered congenital defect (HOC), but evidence showed they were aware of a similar condition (IHSS) at the time of the waiver. The appeals board and trial court concluded that HOC and IHSS were essentially the same condition, and the carrier's waiver was binding, thereby affirming the summary judgment in Martinez’s favor.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentWaiverEstoppelCompensabilityHeart ConditionHydrogen Sulfide ExposureBenefit Review ConferenceAppeals PanelJudicial Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fonda v. Norton Co.

Claimant suffered serious injuries to his right leg, hip, and spine in February 1988, necessitating two laminectomies for a herniated disc. The employer and its insurer challenged the Workers’ Compensation Board's determination that the claimant's permanent disability resulted solely from his back injury, arguing that a preexisting dormant heart condition contributed. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's disability was not materially or substantially greater due to the heart condition. The Board's prerogative to resolve conflicting medical opinions was upheld. Furthermore, the court found the employer's argument regarding a contractually based reimbursement claim could not be raised for the first time on appeal, as it was not addressed administratively.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryPreexisting ConditionHeart ConditionDisabilityLaminectomyCausationMedical EvidenceFactual DisputeAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mason v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Charlie Mason, a 53-year-old truck driver, died of a heart attack while working a night shift in freezing weather. His widow filed a worker's compensation claim, asserting the heart attack was an occupational disease or an accidental injury resulting from his strenuous work conditions and long hours. The jury determined Mason had a heart attack but found it did not occur in the course of his employment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's 'take nothing' judgment, finding no error in the jury instructions regarding the definition of 'occupational disease' or the refusal to include a specific definition of 'accidental injury'.

Worker's CompensationHeart AttackOccupational DiseaseCourse of EmploymentJury InstructionsAccidental InjuryAppellate ReviewCausationTexas LawTruck Driver
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burress v. Shelby County

Donnie Burress, a deputy sheriff for Shelby County, sought employment benefits for heart disease, alleging it was incurred in the line of duty under Tennessee Code section 7-51-201(a)(1). This statute presumes heart conditions for law enforcement officers are work-related if they meet certain conditions, including passing a pre-employment physical without revealing the condition. The trial court dismissed his complaint, finding he did not meet the conditions for the presumption and that any presumption was overcome by medical evidence. The appellate court affirmed, noting Burress admitted to having hypertension at the time of hiring, thus failing to meet a key statutory requirement. Furthermore, medical testimony from Dr. Gary Murray indicated that Burress's heart disease was attributable to personal risk factors like smoking, high cholesterol, and diabetes, rather than his employment, supporting the trial court's decision.

Heart DiseaseHypertensionLaw EnforcementWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStatutory PresumptionMedical EvidenceCausationEmployment BenefitsCoronary Artery DiseasePhysical Examination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau

This case involves Wood F. Jones, who suffered a work-related finger injury in 1978 that led to a bacterial heart condition requiring surgery. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (predecessor and current) consistently awarded Jones medical expenses. Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau appealed these awards, arguing Jones' heart condition was not caused by the finger injury and was not compensable. The Colorado County District Court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court found that previous Board awards in 1979 and a 1996 District Court judgment had already determined Jones' heart condition to be a compensable injury caused by the finger injury, applying collateral estoppel. The court reversed the summary judgment in favor of Wausau and remanded the case for a determination of whether Jones' current medical expenses are reasonable, necessary, and related to his heart ailment, and for further proceedings on Jones' counterclaim for bad faith.

Workers' CompensationMedical ExpensesCausationBacterial EndocarditisCut Finger InjuryRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentTexas LawInsurance Liability
References
50
Case No. 03-14-00717-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2014

Vivek Goswami, M.D. and Austin Heart, PLLC v. Nancy Jo Rodriguez

Nancy Jo Rodriguez filed a health care liability claim against Vivek Goswami, M.D., and Austin Heart, PLLC, alleging negligence related to her continued use of the drug Pradaxa. Rodriguez claims that despite an order from Dr. David Kessler to discontinue Pradaxa, Dr. Goswami failed to follow this order, and nurses/staff at Austin Heart authorized refills. This, she alleges, led to her hospitalization. Appellants objected to the expert report by Dr. Jeffrey A. Breall, arguing it was conclusory, lacked factual support, and failed to adequately define the standard of care, breach, and causation for each appellant. The trial court denied Appellants' motion to dismiss, finding Dr. Breall's report adequate. Appellants are appealing this denial, contending the trial court abused its discretion as the report did not constitute a good-faith effort to comply with Chapter 74 requirements, effectively negating its purpose by concealing facts and offering vague conclusions.

Medical MalpracticeExpert Report AdequacyTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CareBreach of DutyCausationConclusory Expert OpinionsMotion to DismissPradaxa Medication
References
24
Case No. 03-02-00196-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Heart Hospital IV, L.P. and Texas Workforce Commission v. Charles A. King

Charles A. King, an employee of Heart Hospital IV, L.P., was denied unemployment benefits by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) after failing a drug test. King sought judicial review, initially filing in Travis County and later refiling in Bastrop County, 125 days after the TWC's final decision. Heart Hospital and TWC challenged the refiling, arguing King missed the 14-day statutory deadline for judicial review. The district court denied TWC's plea to the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 14-day deadline in the labor code is a jurisdictional prerequisite, making the sixty-day tolling provision of section 16.064 and equitable tolling inapplicable. Consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction, and the cause was dismissed.

Unemployment BenefitsJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory DeadlinesJudicial ReviewTexas Labor CodePlea to JurisdictionTolling ProvisionsEquitable TollingCourt of AppealsAdministrative Law
References
16
Case No. ADJ10138674
Regular
Jan 21, 2020

JUAN BARRAGAN vs. NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a correctional officer claiming industrial heart injury. The applicant benefits from a statutory presumption that his heart trouble arose from his employment. While the defense presented a medical opinion suggesting the applicant's heart attack was an exacerbation of a prior condition, the Appeals Board found this evidence insufficient to rebut the presumption. The Board is remanding the case for further medical development to determine if the applicant's work activities were a contributing cause to his current heart condition, placing the burden of proof on the defendant.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJuan BarraganNorth Kern State PrisonState Compensation Insurance FundADJ10138674Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryHeart Trouble PresumptionLabor Code section 3212.2
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,552 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