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. No. 10-04-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2005

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. William Ira Mathison

William Ira Mathison was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought judicial review after the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel found he was not in the course and scope of his employment. A jury determined that Mathison was in the course and scope of his employment, a finding appealed by Pacific Employers Insurance Company. The appeal argued that the evidence supporting the jury's finding was legally and factually insufficient. The court, however, noted Mathison’s supervisor considered the trip to repair a work laptop to be in furtherance of the employer’s business. The court found that Mathison was impliedly directed by his employer, thus acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Worker's CompensationCourse of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewFactual SufficiencyLegal SufficiencyTexas Labor CodeSpecial Mission ExceptionEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 2-89-133-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1990

McCoy v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

Margaret McCoy, an employee, sustained an injury on her employer's premises while attempting to pick up her paycheck before her scheduled shift. She had several alternative methods for receiving her pay. The trial court determined that McCoy was not acting within the course and scope of her employment at the time of the injury. On appeal, McCoy argued that the evidence established as a matter of law that her injury occurred within the course and scope of her employment. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that McCoy's actions were not in furtherance of her employer's business. A dissenting opinion argued that McCoy should have been considered within the course and scope of her employment as a matter of law.

Worker's CompensationCourse and Scope of EmploymentPaycheck CollectionPremises LiabilityEmployer AccommodationAppealAffirmationDissenting OpinionTexas LawSummary Judgment
References
5
Case No. ADJ1543435
Regular
Feb 04, 2013

Sergio Cordero vs. Michael Bernier dba Pacific Services, Stellrecht Company, State Compensation Insurance Fund, Uninsured Employers Benefit Trust Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant was injured in the course and scope of employment with an unlicensed contractor, Michael Bernier. The Board gave great weight to the Workers' Compensation Judge's credibility determination regarding the employer's testimony. The applicant's injury occurred while he was directed by Bernier to remove solar panels from a property owned by Stellrecht Company. The Board clarified the distinction between "course of employment" and "scope of employment" in workers' compensation law to affirm the decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ credibilitycourse and scope of employmentunlicensed contractoruninsured contractorgeneral-special relationshipLabor Code §2750.5B&P §7125.2Blew v. Horner
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Casualty Co. v. Hutchinson

This is a workers' compensation death case where Mary Jane Hutchinson sought benefits for her son, George W. Hutchinson, who died in an automobile accident while allegedly in the course and scope of his employment with Ford Motor Credit Corporation. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff, but Employers Casualty Company appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the "dual-purpose travel doctrine." The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the decedent was in the course of his employment and that the dual-purpose travel doctrine was not applicable to the fatal trip.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentDual-Purpose Travel DoctrineAppellate ReviewJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceStatutory InterpretationEmployer's Affairs
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Welch v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Betty Jo Welch appealed a take-nothing judgment in a worker's compensation death case concerning her son, Alan Wayne Welch, who drowned in a frac tank containing crude oil while employed by Jolley Well Service. The jury initially found Alan Welch was not in the course and scope of his employment, with Texas Employers' defense citing intoxication. Mrs. Welch argued the trial court erred in admitting testimony from Kenny Barnes about her son "sniffing gas" on a prior occasion, deeming it prejudicial and irrelevant. The appellate court agreed that the testimony was improperly admitted as it failed to meet the criteria for a declaration against interest or an admission, and was not relevant to the intoxication defense. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings.

worker's compensationdeath caseintoxication defensecourse and scope of employmentadmissibility of evidencehearsaydeclarations against interestmotion in limineprejudicial testimonyreversal and remand
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sells v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

Edward D. Sells, a worker, appealed a take-nothing judgment in a workers' compensation case, arguing that the jury's failure to find his injury occurred during the course and scope of his employment with Westbrook Ready-Mix was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. The appellee, Texas Employers’ Ins. Association (TEIA), filed a motion for rehearing, which the court ultimately overruled. The appellate court found the jury's refusal to link Sells' injury to his employment was manifestly wrong and unjust, given the overwhelming evidence presented. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial, emphasizing its responsibility to reweigh the evidence on factual insufficiency points.

Workers' CompensationJury VerdictFactual InsufficiencyStandard of ReviewGreat Weight and PreponderanceMotion for New TrialCourse and Scope of EmploymentAppellate ReviewCredibility of WitnessesExpert Testimony
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n v. Miller

This is a Worker's Compensation case where Texas Employers Insurance Association (T.E.I.A.) appealed an award of death benefits to Margaret Louise Miller, the surviving beneficiary of Morris Lee Miller. Morris Miller, employed by the Florence Drane Estate, died on December 18, 1976, after being found burned in a trash pit on the property where his routine duties included burning trash. T.E.I.A. disputed whether Mr. Miller was an 'employee' at the time of his death and if his death resulted from an injury in the course and scope of his employment. A jury found in favor of Mrs. Miller, and the trial court entered judgment for maximum death benefits and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, overruling all of T.E.I.A.'s points of error.

Worker's CompensationDeath BenefitsScope of EmploymentAverage Weekly WageLump Sum Attorney's FeesJury MisconductTexas Civil StatutesIndustrial Accident BoardEmployer LiabilityBeneficiary Rights
References
8
Case No. 13-17-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Audrey Nickerson v. Julio Pineda and Unique Employment, LLC, Unique Employment Services, Unique Employment I, LTD, D/B/A Unique Employment Services

Audrey Nickerson, an employee of the City of Corpus Christi, sued Julio Pineda, a temporary worker, and Unique Employment Services for negligence after Pineda, operating a City-owned backhoe, caused an injury. Appellees filed a plea to the jurisdiction, which the trial court granted. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Pineda, determining he qualified as a government employee under the Texas Tort Claims Act and was therefore immune from suit. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims against Unique Employment Services, concluding that the borrowed-employee doctrine, on which Unique relied, is an affirmative defense to liability and not a jurisdictional matter properly addressed in a plea to the jurisdiction. The case against Unique was remanded for further proceedings.

Plea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActElection of RemediesBorrowed Employee DoctrineNegligenceTemporary StaffingVicarious LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Huggins v. Masterclass Masonry

A bricklayer claimant was injured in a municipal bus shelter across from his worksite while eating lunch. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that lunchtime injuries are generally outside the scope of employment unless the employer maintains control, which was not established. The court also rejected arguments regarding proximity to the worksite, finding no causal relationship or special hazard, and dismissed the presumption of compensability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1), noting it does not wholly relieve the claimant of the burden of proving the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

Lunch Break InjuryBus Shelter AccidentScope of EmploymentEmployer ControlCausal RelationshipSpecial HazardFortuitous CoincidenceWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Beach

Jesse P. Beach was killed in an automobile accident while returning home from work, transporting three other members of his drilling crew. His wife and son sought workmen’s compensation from Texas Employers’ Insurance Association. A jury rendered judgment for Beach’s wife and son, but the insurance carrier appealed. The core legal question was whether Beach’s fatal injuries were sustained in the course of his employment, particularly concerning the use of his personal vehicle for transport and the employer's compensation practices. The appellate court found that Beach's employment contract explicitly excluded payment for transportation time and the use of his vehicle, overturning the jury's verdict and ruling that he was not in the course of his employment.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentTravel TimeEmployment ContractCustom and UsageAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance ClaimDrilling Company
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 15,757 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