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

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Konvicka

Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, the insurer of A. O. Smith Corporation, sued to set aside an award granted by the Texas Industrial Accident Board to the legal beneficiaries of John Konvicka. Konvicka, an employee, died from injuries sustained after attempting to start a stalled car in the employer's parking lot and then on a public highway following a heavy rain. The insurance company argued that the injury occurred outside the scope of employment since it was off-premises and after working hours. The court, however, determined that the injury was compensable under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Act, emphasizing that the incident originated on the employer's premises and was incident to employment, aligning with the liberal construction of the statute. Consequently, the court denied the insurer's attempt to set aside the award and affirmed the beneficiaries' entitlement to compensation.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryCommuting HazardParking Lot InjuryTexas LawLiberal ConstructionAccidentFatal Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin v. Parker

This is a Workmen's Compensation appeal where Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin (defendant) appealed a judgment favoring Alton A. Parker (plaintiff). Parker claimed total and permanent disability due to cancer resulting from radiation exposure during his employment. The defendant contended there was no evidence establishing a causal link between the work-incurred radiation and Parker's cancer. The court reviewed the medical expert testimonies, finding them insufficient to prove a causal connection based on reasonable medical probability. The trial court's judgment was reversed, and judgment was rendered that the plaintiff take nothing, concluding that medical opinions were speculative without accurate information on radiation exposure.

CancerRadiation ExposureCausal ConnectionMedical TestimonyExpert WitnessesTotal DisabilityPermanent DisabilityOccupational HazardLymphomaSeminoma
References
4
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

Wheeler v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin

This case concerns an appeal filed by Cecil Wheeler, as guardian for Edward N. Prince, Jr., challenging an order from the Shelby County District Court. The lower court had denied Prince's motion for summary judgment and abated his lawsuit, which sought to mature a worker's compensation award from the Industrial Accident Board. This action was taken pending the final determination of a prior suit filed by the insurance carrier, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, in Madison County to set aside the same IAB award. Employers Mutual moved to dismiss the current appeal, arguing the Shelby County order was interlocutory and non-appealable. The appellate court affirmed, stating that a court's authority to abate an action on its own motion does not render the order void, especially when made aware of a prior pending suit with identical parties and issues. The court also reiterated that interlocutory appeals from orders denying summary judgment are prohibited in Texas, thus dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Interlocutory OrderSummary Judgment DenialAbatement of ActionJurisdiction DisputeWorkers' Compensation ClaimAppeal DismissalMultiplicity of SuitsPrior Pending ActionDominant JurisdictionTexas Civil Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Illinois Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. Lewis

This appellate case addresses a default judgment entered against defendants, Illinois Employers Insurance Company of Wausau and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, in a worker's compensation suit. The trial court struck the defendants' pleadings for failing to answer interrogatories and denied their request for a jury trial on damages. The appellate court ruled that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing such harsh sanctions without a prior order compelling discovery. It also found error in denying the jury trial on unliquidated damages. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings.

Worker's CompensationDefault JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsInterrogatoriesTexas Civil ProcedureAbuse of DiscretionRight to Jury TrialDamagesAppellate ReviewRemand
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leal v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co.

Andres C. Leal, the appellant, brought a workers' compensation suit against Appellee, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, appealing an Industrial Accident Board award. Leal claimed a compensable injury from industrial fumes while working for St. Regis Paper Company. The jury found no occupational disease but awarded medical expenses, leading the court to award $975.60 for medical expenses while denying workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, finding harmful error in the admission of a hearsay letter from McGovern Allergy Clinic and an erroneous jury charge regarding 'occupational disease' instead of 'injury' under Article 8306, § 20.

Workers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseIndustrial FumesHearsay EvidenceJury Charge ErrorMedical ExpensesBronchial ProblemsLung ProblemsAppealRemand
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Co. of Wisconsin

Regonald T. Clayton, the plaintiff-appellant, sought total and permanent disability benefits after an on-the-job eye injury led to its removal. He claimed general injuries including neurosis and central nervous system damage, arguing these were compensable under workmen’s compensation law. The defendant-appellee, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, contested these additional claims, asserting only the eye loss was compensable. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant, limiting benefits to the specific eye injury. On appeal, the court reviewed evidence, including psychiatric testimony confirming a severe chronic anxiety reaction and injury to the central nervous system. The appellate court found sufficient probative evidence to support the plaintiff's general injury theories, emphasizing that neurosis causing physical disability is compensable in Texas. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Workers' CompensationEye InjuryNeurosisCentral Nervous System InjuryTraumatic NeurosisTotal Permanent DisabilityAppellate ReviewReversed and RemandedMedical Expert TestimonyEvidentiary Issues
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Finchum v. Colaiacomo

The Workers’ Compensation Board issued an amended decision ruling against further development of the record on the employer’s liability under Workers’ Compensation Law § 56, and later denied the employer's request for reconsideration. The claimant was involved in a serious automobile accident while driving for an uninsured employer, leading to complex proceedings where the employer sought to assign liability to a general contractor, Cleanway Industries, Inc., and its insurer, Travelers Insurance Company. The appellate court found that the Board abused its discretion by sua sponte rescinding its prior directive to further develop the record, particularly without a compelling reason or apparent regulatory authorization. The court noted that the issue of liability had been pending for years and there were potential reasonable excuses for the employer's absence at certain hearings. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Board's decisions and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.

Workers' Compensation LawBoard DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionRecord DevelopmentWaiver DefenseUninsured EmployerGeneral Contractor LiabilityInsurance CoverageAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 18,706 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