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. 15-25-00124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2025

Brian Beckcom v. Texas A&M University

Appellant Brian Beckcom seeks to abate his appeal and remand the case to the trial court for findings of fact and conclusions of law. This motion is filed after the trial court's May 12, 2025 order dismissed Beckcom's petition for a writ of mandamus against Texas A&M University. Beckcom argues that the lack of specific findings from the trial court, despite a timely request, hinders his ability to present a proper appeal. The underlying dispute involves Texas A&M's alleged non-compliance with Public Information Act requests related to the Corps of Cadets' freshman experience program and a hazing investigation. Beckcom asserts that without these detailed findings, the legal and factual bases for the dismissal remain unclear, potentially jeopardizing his appellate arguments.

Public Information ActMandamusOpen RecordsTexas A&M UniversityCorps of CadetsHazingStudent ConductDue ProcessFreedom of InformationHigher Education
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franks v. Brookshire Bros., Inc.

Mark Franks appeals a summary judgment in his personal injury action against his employer, Brookshire Brothers, Inc., a non-subscriber to worker's compensation insurance. Franks argues a release he signed is invalid due to its inapplicability to his specific injuries, lack of consideration, and Brookshire's alleged breach by non-payment of recited consideration. The court finds no material fact issue regarding the release's reference to his claims. However, it reverses and remands for trial, holding that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the release was supported by consideration, specifically the non-payment of ten dollars and the insufficiency of past benefits or return to work as consideration.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentRelease AgreementConsiderationContract BreachEmployer LiabilityNon-subscriberWorkers' CompensationTexas LawAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyers v. Huschle Bros.

The court affirmed Special Term's decision to strike certain paragraphs from the defendant's answer due to redundancy and failure to comply with Civil Practice Act § 241, which requires plain and concise statements of material facts in pleadings, even in libel actions. Specifically, the court found the material insufficient as a defense of justification if it purported to apply general statements about labor unions to the plaintiff union. The decision further clarified the requirements for pleading justification, stating that particular facts and circumstances constituting the truth must be set forth in detail, rather than merely reiterating libelous words. Additionally, for pleading mitigation, the court mandated that specific mitigating circumstances, including sources of information and grounds for belief, be stated to demonstrate an absence of actual malice, pursuant to Civil Practice Act § 338. Finally, the court addressed the burden of proof for establishing actual malice in cases involving qualified privilege, noting that it generally rests with the plaintiff once a relationship giving rise to qualified privilege is established.

LibelPleading standardsJustification defenseMitigation defenseActual maliceQualified privilegeCivil Practice ActRedundancy in pleadingsMaterial factsBurden of proof
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2018

Kosirog v. Berryhill

Gerald Steven Kosirog sought judicial review of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's decision to deny his disability benefits. Kosirog contested the hearing officer's finding regarding the onset date of his disability. The Court granted Kosirog's motion to remand the case for further administrative proceedings, citing two primary errors. First, the hearing officer failed to provide adequate "good reasons," supported by specific evidence, for discounting the opinion of Kosirog's treating physician, Dr. Williams. Second, the hearing officer did not properly evaluate Kosirog's credibility by failing to identify specific contradictory medical or non-medical facts in his testimony. The Court emphasized the need for specific evidence and clear explanations in credibility determinations and medical opinion weighting.

Disability BenefitsSocial SecurityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewRemandMedical EvidenceTreating Physician OpinionCredibility AssessmentResidual Functional CapacityChronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
References
18
Case No. 06-01-00121-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2002

Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Jimmy I. Brown

This case involves an appeal by Pacific Employers Insurance Company, a workers' compensation carrier, against Jimmy I. Brown, an injured worker, regarding an impairment rating. Pacific disputes the trial court's judgment of a seventeen percent impairment rating, arguing it conflicts with the trial court's findings of fact stating a thirteen percent rating. The appellate court examines the applicability of various Texas Rules of Civil Procedure concerning findings of fact and judgments, and the requirements for assigning impairment ratings under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. The court ultimately reverses the trial court's judgment and remands the case for a new trial due to the conflict between the judgment and the findings of fact, and to ensure compliance with statutory notice requirements for the TWCC. The court also discusses the legal basis for impairment ratings, emphasizing that a trial court must adopt a specific rating assigned by a doctor in the case.

Workers' CompensationImpairment RatingJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureFindings of FactConclusions of LawJudgment ConflictReversal and RemandTreating PhysicianDesignated Doctor
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith County Education Ass'n v. Smith County Board of Education

This case involves a constitutional challenge by Smith County public school teachers against the Smith County Board of Education's random drug testing policy. Plaintiffs argued that the policy violated their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches due to insufficient notice regarding tested substances and intrusive implementation procedures. The Court determined that while random drug testing of teachers is not inherently unconstitutional and serves a legitimate deterrent purpose, the 2007 policy, as written and implemented, was flawed. Specifically, it lacked clarity on the specific drugs being tested, included an 'any detectable amount' clause, and involved intrusive sample collection practices. Consequently, the Court found the policy unconstitutional for violating the individual plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment rights due to its lack of adequate notice and unreasonable intrusion on privacy.

Fourth Amendment RightsDrug Testing PolicyPublic Education LawUnreasonable SearchesTeacher PrivacyConstitutional ChallengeSchool Board AuthorityDue ProcessIn Loco ParentisSafety-Sensitive Positions
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. WR-83,135-01
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2015

Granger, Bartholomew

Bartholomew Granger, the applicant, is filing objections to the convicting court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in his writ of habeas corpus application. He argues that the convicting court failed to conduct an adequate fact-finding process, leaving numerous controverted and material factual issues unresolved. Key issues include potential prosecutorial misconduct regarding withheld evidence (his daughter's journal) and claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to investigate and present crucial mitigating evidence. Granger also points out inaccuracies in his trial counsel's affidavits and criticizes the court's practice of adopting the State's proposed findings wholesale. Consequently, Granger requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to remand his application to the convicting court for a full and fair opportunity to address his claims.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselBrady violationprosecutorial misconductcapital murderpost-conviction reliefjudicial reviewfact-findingdue processTexas
References
19
Case No. ADJ2789222 (LBO 0313720) ADJ2524905 (LBO 0330648)
Regular
Oct 10, 2008

Esperanza Sanchez vs. ACAPULCO RESTAURANT, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended the WCJ's decision regarding medical treatment. Specifically, Finding of Fact No. 4 was amended to generally award further medical treatment reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of the industrial injury, rather than limiting it to specific physician opinions or treatments. The rest of the WCJ's amended decision, including the correct monetary amount of permanent disability indemnity, was affirmed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDRECONSIDERATIONGRANTING RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONPERMANENT DISABILITY INDEMNITYMEDICAL TREATMENTLABOR CODE SECTION 4600REASONABLY REQUIREDCURE OR RELIEVEINDUSTRIAL INJURY
References
0
Case No. ADJ7313244
Regular
Sep 14, 2012

KEVIN WRIGHT vs. CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to sanction the defendant's attorneys $500 for misrepresenting the record and failing to follow procedural rules. The defendant's petition for reconsideration selectively quoted and omitted material facts from medical depositions, thereby distorting the evidence. Specifically, the defendant misrepresented a QME's opinion on industrial causation and applicant's stress levels. This failure to fairly state the evidence and provide specific record citations violates WCAB rules and warrants sanction.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5813cumulative trauma injuryindustrial causationPetition for ReconsiderationPanel QMEWCJRules of Practice and Procedurematerial misrepresentationselective quotation
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,209 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