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

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 1986

Claim of Seidel v. Crown Industries

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying death benefits to a claimant, who the Board ruled was not the legal widow of the decedent, Harold Seidel. The employer and carrier challenged the claimant's right to compensation, asserting that decedent's prior marriage to Marion Strope was never legally terminated. Both claimant and Strope presented marriage certificates. The court noted the strong legal presumption favoring the validity of the second marriage, especially when the challenger is a stranger to the marital relation. The respondents bore the burden of disproving the second marriage by clear and convincing evidence. The court found that the Board's decision failed to set forth the proper legal standard and appeared to give undue weight to the claimant's knowledge of the prior marriage, which is irrelevant to her legal widow status. Due to the serious question regarding the application of the correct legal standard and the close factual question, the decision was annulled and remitted for clarification and further proceedings consistent with the proper legal standard.

Death BenefitsWorkers' CompensationMarital StatusLegal WidowPresumption of ValiditySecond MarriageBurden of ProofAdministrative LawRemittalJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Croswell v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co.

W. J. Croswell appealed a decision denying him workers' compensation for an injury sustained while performing carpentry work for Pig Stands Company, Inc. The Industrial Accident Board initially refused his claim. The central legal question was whether Croswell's carpentry work was within the "usual course of trade, business, profession or occupation" of his employer, Pig Stands, which was primarily chartered for manufacturing and selling food products. The court concluded that building structures was incidental, not central, to Pig Stands' usual business. Consequently, Croswell was not deemed an "employee" under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the employer did not have insurance covering such specific work at the time of his injury. The trial court's directed verdict in favor of Commercial Standard Insurance Company was affirmed on appeal.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentIndustrial Accident BoardInsurance CoverageCarpenterManufacturing BusinessStatutory InterpretationUsual Course of BusinessDirected VerdictAppeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peters v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co.

Reginald Peters initiated a lawsuit against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company after they ceased his long-term disability payments. This cessation occurred because Peters had previously entered into a settlement agreement with his employer, Averitt Express, Inc., which included a general release of Averitt and its insurers from future liability. Peters argued that Reliance, not being specifically named in the settlement, was still obligated to pay benefits. The court, presiding over an ERISA-governed claim, applied federal common law to assess the validity of the release. It concluded that the agreement's broad language, which encompassed Averitt's insurers and long-term disability benefits, did include Reliance. Citing adequate consideration and Peters's legal representation, the court granted Reliance's motion to dismiss, barring Peters's claim.

Disability BenefitsERISAMotion to DismissSettlement AgreementRelease of ClaimsFederal Common LawWaiver ValidityLong-Term DisabilityInsurer LiabilityFifth Circuit Law
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Stigger

This worker's compensation case concerns an appeal by Standard Fire, the carrier, against a judgment rendered in favor of Stigger, the claimant, by a county court at law of Dallas County. The Industrial Accident Board initially awarded Stigger $2,377.62, but after a jury trial initiated by Standard Fire to set aside the award, the court rendered a judgment for Stigger in the amount of $34,692.21. Standard Fire appealed, arguing that the trial court exceeded its jurisdictional limits and erred in not reducing the judgment to conform to Stigger's pleadings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that once jurisdiction is lawfully acquired, subsequent events do not defeat it, and a court can grant complete relief even if the judgment exceeds the initial jurisdictional limits, especially in worker's compensation cases.

Worker's CompensationJurisdiction LimitsCounty Court at LawAmount in ControversyAppellate ReviewTexas Civil StatutesJudicial EconomyPleading ConformityDisability BenefitsIndustrial Accident Board
References
10
Case No. 08-18-00005-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2018

Caples Land Company, L.L.C. v. the City of El Paso, Texas and Its Building and Standards Commission

Caples Land Company, L.L.C. appealed a substantial civil penalty levied by the City of El Paso's Building and Standards Commission concerning the 'American Furniture Building'. The dispute originated from compliance issues and the assessment of an initial $2.1 million fine, later reduced to $1.2 million by the district court. Caples Land argued violations of due process, the discriminatory application of a vague Vacant Building Ordinance, and that the fine constituted a regulatory taking exceeding the property's value. The district court upheld the Commission's order as legal and enforceable, but modified the daily civil penalty amount. This appeal seeks reversal or remand of that final judgment.

Building StandardsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineRegulatory TakingExcessive FinesProperty LawMunicipal LawAppellate ProcedureEl Paso County
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co.

Plaintiff Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Defendant Standard Dye & Finishing Co., Inc. to collect withdrawal assessments under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). Standard Dye ceased its primary business operations in June 1980, prior to the MPPAA's effective date of September 26, 1980, but retained a few employees for clean-up and dismantling work through October 1980, for whom pension contributions were made. The core legal issue is whether Standard Dye "completely withdrew" from the pension plan before September 26, 1980, which would eliminate liability due to the Tax Reform Act of 1984. The Court analyzed the meaning of "permanently ceases all covered operations" under 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a), considering similar precedents. The Court found that the retention of a skeleton crew for liquidation activities did not prevent a complete cessation of covered operations. Therefore, Standard Dye effected a complete withdrawal prior to the MPPAA's effective date.

Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanComplete WithdrawalCovered OperationsTax Reform Act of 1984Retroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Northrop v. Thorsen

The plaintiff sued the defendant attorney for legal malpractice, alleging that the defendant's failure to obtain consent from the workers' compensation carrier (ERM Claim Services, Inc.) or a court compromise order, as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), led to the termination of the plaintiff's workers' compensation benefits. The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment but precluded the plaintiff from offering expert testimony. On appeal, the court ruled that expert testimony was not needed as the defendant's conduct clearly fell below the standard of care by disregarding a well-established legal rule. The appellate court found the defendant's negligence was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's damages and rejected the argument that the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. The order was modified, denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and awarding summary judgment on liability to the plaintiff.

Legal MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationProfessional NegligenceSummary JudgmentAttorney DutyProximate CauseMitigation of DamagesNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commercial Standard Insurance Company v. Villa

Lonardo Villa filed a workmen's compensation case against Commercial Standard Insurance Company seeking benefits for total and permanent incapacity resulting from an employment injury. The jury found in favor of Villa, a decision upheld by the trial court, prompting an appeal from the insurance company. Appellant Commercial Standard raised multiple points of error, primarily challenging the method of calculating Villa's wage rate and the finding of permanent disability. The appellate court examined the sufficiency of evidence regarding the wage rate determination under Article 8309 and the medical testimony supporting Villa's permanent incapacity. Concluding that all points raised by the appellant lacked merit, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workmen's CompensationTotal Permanent IncapacityWage Rate CalculationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityMedical EvidenceProcedural ErrorStatutory InterpretationTexas Law
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 5,871 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