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
May 06, 1998

Nieves v. Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp.

Reding Nieves, an employee of United Fire Protection, was injured while installing fire sprinklers at a New York Hall of Science site, which was subcontracted by Five Boro Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Corp. He allegedly tripped over a concealed drop light after stepping off an eight-foot ladder, sustaining an ankle injury. Nieves sued Five Boro under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Five Boro filed a third-party action against United, with the motion court initially granting Nieves summary judgment. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying summary judgment for all parties due to unresolved questions of fact surrounding the accident's cause, including conflicting testimonies. Consequently, the case requires a trial to determine liability and facts, as neither side was entitled to summary judgment.

Elevation-related riskTripping hazardSummary judgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Construction site accidentLadder fallContributory negligenceQuestions of factAppellate DivisionSubcontractor liability
References
11
Case No. 2-09-265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 28, 2010

Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. v. Shelby Jackson

Appellants Don Norris and Avery Air Conditioning/Heating and A-ABAC Services, Inc. appealed a judgment following a bench trial in favor of Appellee Shelby Jackson. The appellants contended that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to establish DTPA violations, economic damages, an unconscionable act by Norris, mental anguish damages, and entitlement to treble damages or attorney's fees. The trial court found that Avery violated the DTPA by misrepresenting rights and failing to disclose information, causing $500 in economic damages, which were trebled. It also found Norris committed an unconscionable act intentionally, causing $2,500 in mental anguish damages, also trebled. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support all findings.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPA ViolationUnconscionable ActEconomic DamagesMental AnguishSufficiency of EvidenceAttorney's FeesContract ModificationConsumer ProtectionTexas Law
References
46
Case No. 07-05-0449-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2007

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and Robin L. Hughes v. Coolbaugh Chiropractic

Gibson Plumbing Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. and employee Robin L. Hughes appealed a judgment rendered in favor of Coolbaugh Chiropractic for medical services provided to Hughes. Hughes sustained a workplace injury and sought chiropractic treatment. Key issues on appeal included the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding Gibson's bookkeeper's actual authority to authorize multiple medical treatments and the basis for the $3,000 damages award. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found sufficient evidence for the bookkeeper's authority and that the damages were within the range of evidence, further concluding that Coolbaugh had adequately presented its claim for attorney's fees.

Employer liabilityEmployee injuryChiropractic treatmentAgency authorityActual authorityApparent authorityDamages awardSufficiency of evidenceAttorney's feesAppellate court
References
22
Case No. 05-18-00564-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2019

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC v. Ralph Carrington D/B/A Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat , LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, Turpin and Turpin, Inc.

Regency Development & Construction Services, LLC appealed the trial court's summary judgments in favor of Ralph Carrington d/b/a Carrington Air Conditioning and Heating, Carrington AC and Heat LLC, Anthony Turpin, Turpin & Turpin, and Turpin and Turpin, Inc. Regency argued that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the grounds that Regency had no evidence of damages because its insurance carrier paid the underlying personal injury settlement and defense costs. The court affirmed the trial court's judgments, concluding that the collateral source rule does not apply to Regency under the facts of this case because Regency made no payments and received no payments from any other party. Furthermore, Regency's insurer, Cincinnati Insurance Company, failed to properly assert its subrogation rights or intervene in the lawsuit.

Summary JudgmentCollateral Source RuleInsurance CoverageSubrogation RightsBreach of ContractNegligenceIndemnityAppellate ReviewTexas LawCivil Procedure
References
13
Case No. 2024-60-7117
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2025

Hall, Michael v. TWC Holdings, Inc.

Mr. Hall sought benefits for a back injury, initially from an August 2022 incident and later from an October 2023 chair collapse. He received treatment for the 2022 injury but continued experiencing pain. An MRI in 2023 revealed degenerative disc disease. Orthopedic surgeon Dr. Daniel Burval consistently attributed Mr. Hall's back condition primarily to degenerative causes, not work-related trauma. Consequently, the Court denied Mr. Hall's request for an MRI and temporary disability benefits, citing a lack of medical proof that his condition was more than 50% caused by a work accident, as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-6-102 (12)(C).

Back InjuryDegenerative Disc DiseaseCausationMedical OpinionExpedited HearingDenial of BenefitsPreexisting ConditionOrthopedic SurgeryLumbar SpineWork Accident
References
1
Case No. 04-09-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2010

Texas Mutual Insurance Company v. Sarah Ochoa

Sarah Ochoa sustained a lumbar sprain injury at work and filed a workers' compensation claim. Texas Mutual Insurance Company, the carrier, initially accepted the lumbar sprain but disputed later claims of extensive lumbar disc pathology as an ordinary disease of life. The hearing officer found a sprain/strain injury superimposed on pre-existing degenerative conditions but also ruled that Texas Mutual waived its right to contest the extent of injury by not timely disputing it within 60 days, making the degenerative conditions compensable. Texas Mutual appealed to the state district court, which granted Ochoa's no-evidence motion for summary judgment. This appellate court reverses and remands the trial court's judgment, holding that the 60-day waiver rule in the Texas Labor Code does not apply to extent-of-injury disputes, citing Texas Supreme Court precedent.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentWaiver RuleExtent of Injury DisputeLumbar SprainDegenerative Disc DiseasePre-existing ConditionAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeJudicial Precedent
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2004

Velella v. New York Local Condotional Release Commission

The petitioners, including Gonzalez, Caba, Stephens, Velella, and DelToro, challenged determinations by the Conditional Release Commission and the Department of Correction. These determinations advised petitioners that their conditional releases were invalid and directed them to surrender. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied their five CPLR article 78 petitions. This appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the petitioners' conditional releases illegal due to non-compliance with Correction Law § 273 (1) and (6). The court also ruled that the agencies had the power to set aside determinations based on significant irregularities and that the petitioners had no substantive due process right to illegal orders, having been afforded adequate procedural due process through the CPLR article 78 proceedings.

Conditional ReleaseCorrection Law ViolationsDue ProcessArticle 78 PetitionAgency AuthorityIllegal ReleaseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewGovernment EstoppelNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2013

Claim of Crane v. Dalrymple Gravel & Contracting Holding

The claimant successfully applied for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a left shoulder injury in 2004, resulting in a permanent partial disability. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, citing the claimant's preexisting conditions of hypertension and degenerative disc disease. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board denied this application, concluding that the carrier failed to demonstrate that these preexisting conditions hindered the claimant's job potential. Upon appeal, the decision of the Board was affirmed, as substantial evidence, including the claimant’s testimony and medical reports, supported the finding that her preexisting conditions did not affect her ability to work.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilitySpecial Disability FundReimbursementPreexisting ConditionsHypertensionDegenerative Disc DiseaseEmployabilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. 2019-05-0430
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2022

Byrd, Michael Harlan v. General Motors

Michael Harlan Byrd sought medical and temporary disability benefits for a back condition, alleging it was linked to a compensable ankle injury or a subsequent fall. General Motors contested this, arguing the back condition was degenerative and pre-existing. The court considered conflicting medical opinions, notably those of Dr. Klekamp and Dr. Qamirani. Dr. Qamirani, who initially supported Mr. Byrd, later changed his stance, concluding it was impossible to differentiate the cause of Mr. Byrd's pain after surgery. Ultimately, the Court found Mr. Byrd failed to meet his burden of proof, as the medical testimony did not establish with reasonable certainty that his spinal condition primarily arose from employment. Consequently, the requested benefits were denied.

Back Injury CausationAnkle Injury ComplicationsMedical Opinion ConflictExpedited Hearing DecisionTemporary Disability ClaimPre-existing Medical ConditionDegenerative Disc DiseaseGait Disorder ImpactSpinal Surgery OutcomeBurden of Proof
References
1
Case No. Docket No. 2023-06-7576; State File No. 44213-2023
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2025

Allen, Heather v. Deliveries via ISG, LLC

The employee in this interlocutory appeal was involved in a motor vehicle accident while operating a company vehicle within the course and scope of her employment. Her authorized treating physician recommended a multi-level cervical fusion due to diagnosed medical conditions. The employer challenged this, attributing the need for surgery to preexisting degenerative conditions. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court ruled that the employer's medical evidence did not overcome the presumption of correctness given to the treating physician's causation opinion, ordering the employer to authorize the surgery. The employer appealed this decision. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order and remanded the case, finding sufficient evidence that the work accident either made a previously asymptomatic condition symptomatic or significantly increased symptomatology, or at least hastened the need for surgery.

Workers' Compensation AppealMotor Vehicle AccidentCervical Spine SurgeryPreexisting ConditionsMedical CausationPresumption of CorrectnessTreating Physician OpinionInterlocutory AppealSpinal StenosisCervical Myelopathy
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,281 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