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. NO. 03-06-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2009

Samuel Campos v. Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association for Reliance National Indemnity Company, an Impaired Carrier

Samuel Campos, an employee, was injured on the job, leading to disputes over his impairment rating and reimbursement for travel expenses. The Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission affirmed a designated doctor's 6% impairment rating and denied travel expenses, which Campos challenged in court. The case involved the Texas Property & Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA) because Campos's employer's insurer became impaired. Initially filed in Winkler County, the case was transferred to Travis County, where TPCIGA was granted summary judgment. The Third District Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment, ruling that the Workers' Compensation Act's specific mandatory venue provision, which places venue in the county of the employee's residence at the time of injury (Winkler County), overrides the Guaranty Act's general venue provision, which would place it in Travis County. The court remanded the case with instructions to transfer it to Winkler County.

Workers' CompensationVenue DisputeMandatory VenueStatutory ConstructionTexas Labor CodeTexas Insurance CodeImpairment RatingTravel Expenses ReimbursementJudicial ReviewAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. 14-19-00539-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. v. Lowery Masonry, LLC

Appellant Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. (HWC) appealed a summary judgment that denied it recovery from Appellee Lowery Masonry, LLC, on a guaranty agreement. Lowery's president had signed a "Letter of Guarantee" to ensure prompt medical treatment for an injured employee, Sandro Tovar, and to pay HWC's usual and customary fees. Lowery later argued an exception applied because it had workers' compensation insurance with Texas Mutual Insurance Company, leading the trial court to grant summary judgment. The appellate court determined that Lowery's interpretation of the exception was unreasonable as it would render the phrase "additional payment" meaningless within the contract. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for further proceedings, concluding that Lowery had not conclusively established its entitlement to summary judgment.

Contract LawGuaranty AgreementSummary JudgmentWorker's Compensation InsuranceMedical BillingAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationTexas LawHarris CountyFourteenth Court of Appeals
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. v. SGS Control Services, Inc.

Charles Reagan was injured at work and treated by Hand & Wrist Center. SGS North America, his employer, signed a "Letter of Guarantee" promising to pay for treatment if workers' compensation insurance didn't cover it. SGS failed to pay, leading Hand & Wrist to sue for breach of contract. SGS filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing Hand & Wrist failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Workers' Compensation Act. The trial court granted the plea, and Hand & Wrist appealed, contending SGS did not invoke its workers' compensation coverage and that exclusive remedies provisions do not apply to healthcare providers. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that SGS invoked its workers' compensation coverage when it obtained it, and Hand & Wrist was required to exhaust administrative remedies with the Texas Department of Insurance-Workers’ Compensation Division before filing suit, as the Division has exclusive jurisdiction over medical fee disputes.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesSubject Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionBreach of ContractHealthcare Provider ReimbursementExclusive RemediesTexas Labor CodeMedical Fee DisputeAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. 03-06-00404-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2007

Johnnie M. Charles v. Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, on Behalf of Phico Insurance Company, an Impaired Carrier

This case involves a restricted appeal filed by Johnnie M. Charles from a trial court's order dismissing her cause without prejudice. Charles initially appealed a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission decision regarding her impairment rating. After a venue transfer to Travis County, her case was dismissed for failure to pay filing fees. A nunc pro tunc order was later issued to correct a clerical error in the cause number of the original dismissal order. Charles appealed, citing errors in the dismissal, the lack of a court reporter, and the original hearing. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that Charles's challenges to the original dismissal were untimely and that no error occurred in the nunc pro tunc order, which merely corrected a clerical error without altering the original judgment's substance.

restricted appealdismissal without prejudicenunc pro tunc orderclerical errorwant of prosecutionappellate jurisdictiontimeliness of appealTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureTexas Rules of Appellate Procedureworkers' compensation
References
13
Case No. 01-12-00216-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2014

Hand & Wrist Center of Houston, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery L.P. v. Maintenance Supply Headquarters, LP

Appellants Hand & Wrist Center, P.A. and SCA Houston Hospital for Specialized Surgery, L.P. appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Maintenance Supply Headquarters, L.P., concerning a breach of contract claim. The dispute arose from a "Letter of Guarantee" signed by Maintenance Supply for medical services provided to an injured employee, Daniel Contreras, whose workers' compensation claim was denied. Maintenance Supply argued estoppel and the applicability of the Labor Code's exclusive remedies provision. The Court of Appeals found the estoppel defense inapplicable and, crucially, ruled that Labor Code section 408.001(a)'s exclusive remedies provision applies only to employees and their beneficiaries, not to health care providers. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Breach of contractSummary judgmentWorkers' compensationExclusive remedyHealth care providersStatutory interpretationTexas Labor CodeEstoppelLetter of GuaranteeAppellate review
References
10
Case No. 03-08-00483-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2010

Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association for Reliance National Insurance Company, an Impaired Company v. Doris J. Toberny

Doris J. Toberny, an exhibit decorator, injured her back on the job in May 2000, leading to spinal-fusion surgery that also corrected pre-existing scoliosis. Initially, her employer's insurer, Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association for Reliance National Insurance Company ('the Company'), paid for the surgery. However, in December 2001, the Company disputed the claim, asserting the injury was only a lower back strain and not the cause of her scoliosis. After a designated doctor assigned Toberny a 25-percent impairment rating in 2002, the Company paid supplemental income benefits for eight quarters. Three years later, in September 2005, the Company sought to dispute her impairment rating and discontinue benefits, claiming her pre-existing conditions were not compensable. The Division of Workers’ Compensation and the district court found that the Company had waived its right to contest the impairment rating under former rule 130.102(g) due to late dispute filing, and affirmed Toberny's 25-percent impairment rating and entitlement to benefits. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the validity of rule 130.102(g) and the finding of waiver, thus confirming Toberny's impairment rating and attorney's fees.

Workers' CompensationImpairment Rating DisputeSupplemental Income BenefitsWaiver DoctrineCompensability of InjuryExtent of InjuryJudicial Review of Agency DecisionTexas Appeals CourtAdministrative Rule ValidityMaximum Medical Improvement
References
12
Case No. 2024-60-2310
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2025

Hernandez, Ambar Salvador v. Redkap Distribution

Ambar Salvador Hernandez sustained a left wrist injury while employed by Redkap Distribution in 2019, leading to diagnoses of carpal and cubital tunnel syndrome. Treating physicians, including Dr. Douglas Weikert and Dr. Douglas, assessed a 3% permanent impairment rating, which Ms. Salvador Hernandez contested due to persistent pain but failed to provide objective medical evidence to refute. The Court upheld the doctors' 3% impairment rating, ruling that the employee's personal testimony alone was insufficient to override the medical presumption. As a result, the Court awarded Ms. Salvador Hernandez $5,320.22 in permanent partial disability benefits. Furthermore, she was granted lifetime open medical benefits for her left wrist injury, with continued treatment by Dr. Douglas.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLeft Wrist InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeCubital Tunnel SyndromeMedical BenefitsImpairment RatingCompensation OrderTennessee LawBurden of ProofMedical Evidence
References
0
Case No. 2020-07-0349
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2025

CARLTON LUCIA, JR. v. DSV SOLUTIONS, INC.

Carlton Lucia, Jr. sustained a right wrist injury while employed by DSV Solutions, Inc. The Court held a Compensation Hearing to determine the date of maximum medical improvement (MMI) and Mr. Lucia's permanent impairment rating. The Court accepted Dr. Michael Dolan's MMI date of March 5, 2024, but sided with Dr. James Weisman's impairment rating, finding a 10% impairment for the carpectomy and an additional 3% for carpal tunnel syndrome, totaling 13% permanent impairment. Consequently, DSV Solutions, Inc. was ordered to pay permanent partial disability benefits amounting to $40,105.26, along with $1,614.40 in discretionary costs.

Right Wrist InjuryCarpectomyCarpal Tunnel SyndromePermanent ImpairmentMaximum Medical ImprovementMedical EvaluationOrthopedicsJudicial DecisionBenefit CalculationDiscretionary Costs
References
1
Case No. 2016-03-0413
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

Dodson, Deborah v. LHC Group

Deborah Dodson, an employee of LHC Group, injured her left ankle and right knee in May 2015. She underwent knee surgery and was placed at maximum medical improvement by Dr. Johnson. She later developed small fiber neuropathy, and despite a referral, faced difficulties obtaining a neurologic impairment evaluation. The Court granted Ms. Dodson's request for a neurologic impairment evaluation, either by Dr. Butler or another neurologist, referring Dr. Butler to the Penalty Program for failure to provide an impairment opinion. However, the Court denied her claim for additional temporary total disability benefits, finding she reached MMI on March 23, 2017, when Dr. Butler ceased active treatment.

Workers' CompensationNeurologic Impairment EvaluationTemporary Total Disability BenefitsMaximum Medical ImprovementSmall Fiber NeuropathyPain ManagementExpedited HearingMedical TreatmentImpairment RatingPenalty Program
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Community College System v. Schneider

Ann Schneider, a sign language interpreter for HCCS, sustained a work-related repetitive trauma injury to her wrists. Her workers' compensation claim, concerning the extent and permanency of the injury, was contested by HCCS after a hearing officer found a zero percent impairment rating. After exhausting administrative remedies, Schneider filed a lawsuit, and a jury found she had a thirty percent impairment rating. HCCS appealed, arguing Schneider's petition lacked the specificity required by Tex.Lab.Code Ann. § 410.302. The court, however, overruled HCCS's issues, concluding that attached exhibits clarified the petition's intent regarding the disputed impairment rating, satisfying the statute's specificity requirement. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsRepetitive Trauma InjuryImpairment RatingPleading SpecificityJudicial Review ProcessJurisdictionStatutory PrerequisiteAppeals Panel DecisionTexas Workers' Compensation ActSelf-insured Governmental Entity
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,620 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