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. ADJ4009385
Regular
Nov 12, 2009

PHILLIP GLANTON vs. SECURITAS, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision that found the applicant's ankle injury compensable, despite the employer's defense of marijuana intoxication. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning, which found the employer failed to meet the burden of proof that intoxication was a substantial factor in causing the injury. The judge gave significant weight to the applicant's medical expert, who opined that a positive marijuana test does not necessarily correlate with psychomotor impairment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ reportGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.substantial evidencePlace v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.SecuritasACE American InsuranceESISslip and fall
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. LSI Lighting Services

A machine operator, referred to as claimant, sustained a head injury and became totally disabled after falling from a platform at work. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for benefits, accepting the employer's defense that the injury resulted solely from intoxication. Evidence included a 0.218% blood alcohol content and medical records indicating alcohol abuse. The Board concluded that claimant's fall was due to intoxication, thereby overcoming the statutory presumption that the injury was not solely due to intoxication. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the finding that intoxication was the sole cause of the claimant's injury.

Workers' Compensation AppealIntoxication DefenseBlood Alcohol ContentStatutory Presumption RebuttalSole Cause of InjuryAppellate Review StandardSubstantial EvidenceMedical Records EvidenceAlcoholism DiagnosisWorkplace Fall
References
7
Case No. NO. 02-11-00155-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Security National Insurance Company v. Duncan Murrell

Duncan Murrell, an employee of Warnick Metal Building Erector, sustained severe injuries after falling through a roof on a jobsite. His employer's insurer, Security National Insurance Company, denied his workers' compensation claim, alleging intoxication from marijuana. A jury in the 17th District Court of Tarrant County found Murrell was not intoxicated, a decision upheld by the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel. Security National appealed this finding to the Second District Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth, raising issues regarding the legal sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, disability, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the jury's finding of no intoxication was supported by legally sufficient evidence and that any jury charge error was not preserved.

Workers' Compensation AppealIntoxication DefenseMarijuana MetabolitesUrine Drug TestingLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceJury FindingBurden of ProofRebuttable PresumptionControlled SubstanceIndustrial Toxicology
References
19
Case No. 04-07-00750-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2008

Michael Adkins v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company

Michael Adkins, an employee of R & L Foods, was injured at work and filed a worker's compensation claim. Texas Mutual Insurance Company, the insurance carrier, filed suit contending Adkins's claim was not compensable due to intoxication. A jury found Adkins intoxicated, leading to a judgment in favor of Texas Mutual. Adkins appealed, arguing the trial court improperly admitted expert testimony from Dr. Jim Kelaher regarding his marijuana metabolite levels. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Dr. Kelaher's expert testimony reliable and admissible, and that its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

Worker's CompensationIntoxication DefenseExpert TestimonyMarijuana UseDrug TestingAdmissibility of EvidenceAbuse of DiscretionTexas LawAppellate ReviewReliability of Expert Opinion
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2005

American Interstate Insurance Co. v. Hinson

William E. Hinson, an employee, filed a workers' compensation claim after falling from a steel structure, which was initially denied due to an intoxication allegation. A jury found Hinson was not intoxicated, leading American Interstate, the insurer, to appeal the verdict. The appellate court reviewed the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence, including Hinson's testimony and an expert's opinion based on a post-accident urinalysis showing marijuana metabolites. The court concluded that the jury could reasonably disregard the expert testimony and the delayed urinalysis results, given Hinson's consistent testimony of normal faculties and work performance. Consequently, the trial court's judgment in favor of Hinson was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseMarijuana UseExpert Witness TestimonyUrinalysis ResultsSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Court DecisionEmployee InjuryWorkplace SafetyMedical Toxicology
References
27
Case No. 09-04-369 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2005

American Interstate Insurance Company v. William E. Hinson

The Texas Court of Appeals, Ninth District, affirmed a jury's finding that William E. Hinson was not intoxicated at the time of his workplace injury. Hinson, a steel connector, fell from a structure and subsequently tested positive for marijuana metabolites. American Interstate Insurance Company appealed, contending that expert testimony from Dr. Thomas Kurt conclusively proved Hinson's intoxication. However, the court ruled that expert testimony is not always binding, especially when contradicted by lay testimony and circumstantial evidence of normal behavior. The jury was entitled to weigh Hinson's self-assessment of his faculties against the expert's opinion, particularly given questions regarding the urine sample's collection date and the expert's methodology.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseMarijuanaSufficiency of EvidenceExpert Testimony AdmissibilityLay Witness CredibilityUrine Drug TestImpaired FacultiesAppellate ReviewTexas Labor Law
References
39
Case No. 2019-01-0545
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2019

Isom, Brenden v. Cherokee Truck Equipment, LLC

Brenden Isom requested an expedited hearing for medical and temporary disability benefits for a left-arm injury, which he sustained after falling from a stand while painting a truck. Cherokee Truck Equipment, LLC, denied the claim, citing a violation of its Drug-Free Work Place policy, as Mr. Isom tested positive for marijuana post-accident. The core issue was whether Mr. Isom could rebut the presumption that his illegal drug use proximately caused his injury. Mr. Isom testified he smoked marijuana four days prior and an expert stated urine tests are unreliable for determining intoxication at the time of the test. The Court found Mr. Isom did not present clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption.

Drug-Free Work Place PolicyMarijuana UseProximate CauseExpedited HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical BenefitsPost-Accident Drug TestRebuttable PresumptionClear and Convincing EvidenceToxicology Report
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dailing v. State

Appellant Amanda Dailing challenged her conviction for driving while intoxicated, arguing that the trial court, Harris County Criminal Court at Law No. 8, lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. She contended that statutes granting jurisdiction to statutory county courts over misdemeanor DWI cases violated the Texas Constitution or, alternatively, that these courts lacked original jurisdiction. The appellate court unanimously concluded that the Texas Constitution authorized the Legislature to grant such jurisdiction and that the Legislature properly exercised this authority. Therefore, the trial court had jurisdiction. Additionally, a majority of the panel affirmed the assessment of a $15 court cost related to visual recording after arrest, despite the Chief Justice's dissent on this issue. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Driving While IntoxicatedDWIJurisdictionStatutory County CourtsConstitutional County CourtsCriminal ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas ConstitutionMisdemeanorAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. CV-23-2141
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Jorge Ferra

Claimant Jorge Ferra, a sound engineer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while traveling for his employer. A toxicology screening showed he was legally intoxicated. The employer and carrier argued that intoxication was the sole cause, making the claim non-compensable under Workers' Compensation Law § 10 (1). The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ's decision, finding that the carrier failed to prove intoxication was the *sole* cause, as a third vehicle striking claimant's car also contributed to the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that driving while intoxicated does not inherently constitute a deviation from employment, and the employer bears a heavy burden to overcome the statutory presumption that injuries were not *solely* due to intoxication.

Workers' CompensationIntoxication DefenseMotor Vehicle AccidentSole Cause of InjuryDeviation from EmploymentCompensabilityBlood Alcohol ContentAppellate ReviewStatutory PresumptionEmployer Liability
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Coiscou

The case involves a criminal complaint brought by the Government against Dante Coiscou for allegedly attempting to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute marijuana, specifically 100 or more marijuana plants, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Coiscou filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing a lack of probable cause for both constructive possession of the marijuana plants and intent to distribute them. United States Magistrate Judge James L. Cott, after affirming the court's authority to adjudicate the motion, denied Coiscou's request. The court found sufficient probable cause based on evidence showing Coiscou had keys to two apartments used as 'marijuana grow houses,' was frequently observed entering and exiting them, and had personal effects found within one of the apartments, combined with the large quantity of marijuana plants.

Probable CauseMotion to DismissCriminal ComplaintConstructive PossessionIntent to DistributeMarijuanaDrug OffensesFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureMagistrate Judge AuthoritySearch Warrant
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 238 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