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. 11-09-00227-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2010

Melba Smith v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company

Melba Smith filed a workers' compensation dispute against Travelers Casualty and Surety Company after an on-the-job injury, challenging her impairment rating and the date of maximum medical improvement (MMI). After administrative proceedings, where the Division of Workers' Compensation upheld an 11% impairment rating and the MMI date, Smith filed suit in Midland County. Travelers responded with a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Smith failed to file an original petition within the statutory deadline and that the MMI issue was not an issue of compensability, thus requiring the suit to be filed in Travis County. The trial court granted Travelers' plea. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, finding that Smith's amended petition satisfied statutory requirements and that the MMI determination, and thus the collateral estoppel issue related to it, directly affected her workers' compensation benefits, making it an issue regarding compensability properly filed in Midland County.

workers' compensationimpairment ratingmaximum medical improvementplea to the jurisdictionjudicial reviewcollateral estoppelcompensabilityappellate procedurestatutory interpretationTexas law
References
3
Case No. 2002CM2706
Regular Panel Decision

Rivas v. Rivas

This case is an appeal from a post-answer default in a marital dissolution proceeding. Sylvia Rivas challenged a default divorce decree, arguing a denial of due process due to lack of proper notice for the trial setting. The trial court had issued an order resetting the final hearing to a later date, and evidence showed Juan Rivas's attorney received notice of this reset. However, the trial proceeded on an earlier, un-cancelled date without Sylvia Rivas's presence, leading to a default judgment. The appellate court found that Sylvia Rivas had relied on the reset order and effectively had no notice of the earlier trial date. This satisfied the first prong of the Craddock elements, necessitating the reversal of the default judgment. The case was reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits.

DivorceMarital DissolutionDefault JudgmentAppealDue ProcessProcedural ErrorMotion for New TrialNoticeCraddock ElementsConscious Indifference
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodall v. Hamlett

This workers’ compensation case involves an appeal filed by the administratrix ad litem of Bobby Lee Glass’s estate, challenging the trial court’s calculation of death benefits and interest commencement. Bobby Lee Glass was killed in 1990 during his employment with Van E. Hamlett, Inc. The trial court had set the commencement date for benefits and interest as February 24, 1992, the date an associated tort claim was dismissed. The appellant argued that benefits and interest should accrue from the employee's death date, as mandated by T.C.A. § 50-6-205(b)(2). The Tennessee Supreme Court agreed, clarifying that compensation payments should begin within 15 days of the employer's knowledge of death. The Court also addressed the application of a 6% penalty for unpaid installments, stating it should only be imposed if the employer acted in bad faith. The case was remanded to the trial court for further consideration regarding the penalty and to recalculate the commencement dates for benefits and interest consistent with the Court's opinion.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsInterest CalculationStatutory InterpretationInterlocutory AppealTort Claim DismissalPenalty for Unpaid BenefitsBad Faith DeterminationRemandTennessee LawCommencement Date of Benefits
References
3
Case No. Docket Nos. 2022-05-0070A, B, C; State File No. 800721-2022
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2023

Glenn, Brantouris v. Jameson Industries, LLC -- Corrected

This case involves an interlocutory appeal where the workers' compensation insurer, AmGuard Insurance Co., questioned the trial court's refusal to consider its motion for declaratory judgment. The insurer sought dismissal, arguing the employee, Brantouris Glenn, failed to establish a date of injury within its policy period. The trial court, presided over by Judge Dale A. Tipps, declined the declaratory judgment motion, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and ripeness, but ordered the employer, Jameson Industries, LLC, to provide a panel of physicians. On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, clarifying that while the Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims lacks jurisdiction for declaratory judgments under Rule 57, an insurer's motion challenging a factual dispute like the date of injury can be treated as a motion for summary judgment. However, the Board found summary judgment inappropriate as a material fact (date of injury) remained in dispute and the employee's burden of proof at an expedited hearing differs from that at trial.

Interlocutory AppealWorkers' CompensationInsurance CoverageDate of Injury DisputeSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionMedical RecordsCredibility AssessmentBurden of Proof
References
11
Case No. 01-03-00301-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2004

Tami Leigh Steambarge v. Carlos R. Rosario

Tami Leigh Steambarge appeals an agreed order modifying a parent-child relationship, which was rendered against her by default and granted her one hour of supervised visitation per month. She contended that her failure to appear at trial was not intentional or due to conscious indifference because the trial court had granted a continuance and she received no notice of a new trial date. The trial court's order explicitly continued the trial generally without setting a specific date. The appellate court found that Steambarge successfully demonstrated she did not receive proper notice of the non-jury trial on December 11. This met the legal requirements, meaning she was not obligated to prove a meritorious defense or that a new trial would not injure the plaintiff. Consequently, the appellate court determined that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Steambarge’s motion for new trial. The order of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Family LawParent-Child RelationshipChild CustodyDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialNotice of TrialDue ProcessAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewAgreed Order
References
8
Case No. 2015-04-0181
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2017

Wright, Carla v. Cookeville Regional Medical Center

This appeal involves an employer’s challenge to the trial court’s grant of a motion to continue the trial date to enable the employee to take additional expert medical testimony. On the eve of trial, the employee argued that she needed an opportunity to re-depose a treating physician in light of the employer’s misrepresentation defense, which was one of numerous defenses asserted by the employer. The trial court granted the employee’s request to continue the trial date, which the employer contends on appeal amounts to an abuse of discretion. We find no error and remand the case.

Continuance GrantAbuse of DiscretionMedical TestimonyMisrepresentation DefenseTrial DateAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationProcedural IssuesDiscretionary DecisionDispute Certification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Stephens

The appellate court affirmed a trial court's judgment regarding workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained by Stephens while employed at East-Tex Plastics, Inc. The core dispute was the start date of the 401-week compensable period. The trial court determined the period began in September 1986, coinciding with the onset of total incapacity, despite the injury occurring in March 1981. The defendant carrier appealed, arguing the period should commence from the injury date. Citing the jury's definitions of "injury" which allowed for subsequent aggravation, and the lack of a statement of facts, the appellate court upheld the trial judge's interpretation, aligning the "date of injury" with the beginning of total incapacity.

Total IncapacityPartial IncapacityCompensable PeriodDate of Injury DefinitionJury Charge InterpretationAppellate AffirmationStatutory ConstructionWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier Dispute
References
5
Case No. ADJ6762403
Regular
Jan 07, 2013

THEODORE PERLL vs. CARDINALE AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, ULICO CASUALTY COMPANY

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal, upholding the WCJ's order to continue the case to trial. The applicant sought to rescind the trial date, arguing that an MRI of his knee, ordered by his treating physician, might reveal the need for further surgery and that proceeding to trial would prevent him from presenting current medical information. The Board found that by the trial date, the applicant would have the MRI results and any resulting surgical recommendations, allowing the trial judge to assess whether to proceed. The applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, making reconsideration an adequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferenceTemporary Disability BenefitsPermanent and StationaryFurther SurgeryIndustrial InjuryWCJ
References
0
Case No. SJO 0251585
Regular
Dec 14, 2007

JENNY PHAM vs. SANMINA-SCI CORPORATION, SENTRY CLAIMS SERVICE

The defendant, Sanmina-Sci Corporation, petitioned for removal, seeking to vacate a trial date due to their counsel's alleged lack of notice for a mandatory settlement conference. However, the trial has already proceeded on the scheduled date. Because the matter has gone to trial, the petition for removal is moot. Any grievances the defendant has with the trial judge's rulings can be addressed through a petition for reconsideration.

Petition for removalMandatory settlement conferencePrejudiceIrreparably harmedMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceLien claimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCAB Rule 10843Moot
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Marcus

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal challenging a trial court's equitable distribution of marital assets following a divorce between a plaintiff wife and defendant husband, Harold Marcus. The couple's long marriage began in 1948, with the wife contributing to household expenses while the husband completed medical school and later built a successful psychiatric practice and investments. Key disputes included the cut-off date for classifying marital property, the valuation date for assets (with the trial court using the Feb 1985 trial date), and the valuation of the husband's retirement plan trust and professional corporation. The court modified the plaintiff's award from the retirement plan and remitted the matter to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a new hearing to determine the value and equitable distribution of the husband's medical license and psychiatric practice.

Equitable distributionMarital assetsDivorce actionProfessional license valuationRetirement planProperty classificationValuation dateSpousal contributionsMarital residenceInvestment account
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 16,363 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