Employers Mut. L. Ins. v. Gallardo

6 Citing cases

  1. Spillers v. City of Houston

    777 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. App. 1989)   Cited 1 times

    His capacity and efficiency to work were clearly not the same following his injury as they were before. The fact that an injured employee continues to work and make money after his injury does not constitute any bar to his recovery for permanent disability. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Gallardo, 359 S.W.2d 933, 935 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1962, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Even if the employee was paid more than he earned prior to the time he was injured, that is not conclusive of whether he suffered a permanent reduction in his ability to perform his usual duties.

  2. Standard Fire Insurance Company v. Simon

    474 S.W.2d 530 (Tex. Civ. App. 1971)   Cited 11 times

    He says he can do inside work, but he does not like it and would rather drive a truck. Though regularly employed, a workmen's compensation claimant may be totally disabled if the work causes him serious discomfort or unreasonable risk. Texas Employers Ins. Ass'n v. Smith, 374 S.W.2d 287 (Tex.Civ.App., Beaumont 1963, no writ); Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Gallardo, 359 S.W.2d 933 (Tex.Civ.App., Waco 1962, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Here both Dr. Herrin and Dr. Shipp were firm in the view that a person subject to convulsive seizures, as Simon is, should not drive a truck. Dr. Shipp said that although it was safe 99.9 per cent of the time, he did not approve the truck driving because of the possibility of a serious accident.

  3. Fidelitys&sCas. Co. of New York v. Burrows

    404 S.W.2d 353 (Tex. Civ. App. 1966)   Cited 9 times

    Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n. v. Cummings, Tex.Civ.App., 364 S.W.2d 255, wr.ref. n.r.e. Nor is continued work after the injury a bar to a finding of total and permanent incapacity. Texas State Highway Dept. v. Kinsler, Tex.Civ .App., 230 S.W.2d 364, wr.ref.; Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Gallardo, Tex.Civ.App., 359 S.W.2d 933, wr.ref. n.r.e.; Zurich Ins. Co. v. Graham, Tex.Civ.App., 335 S.W.2d 673, wr.ref. n.r .e.; Aetna Casualty & Security Co. v. Depoister, Tex.Civ.App., 393 S .W.2d 822, wr.ref. n.r.e. Such continued employment is merely evidence to be considered by the jury along with other facts and circumstances. Consolidated Casualty Ins. Co. v. Baker, Tex.Civ.App ., 297 S.W.2d 906, wr.ref. n.r.e.

  4. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Depoister

    393 S.W.2d 822 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965)   Cited 28 times

    Testimony from appellee in explanation was that he was compelled to work due to economic necessity of supporting himself and his family, and the work he was doing was lighter than he was accustomed to. As stated in Texas State Highway Dept. v. Kinsler, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W.2d 364, wirt ref., quoted in Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Galldo, Tex.Civ.App., 359 S.W.2d 933, 935, writ ref., n. r. e.: "We think it too well settled to require discussion that the fact that an injured employee continued to work and make money after his injury is not a bar to recovery for total and permanent disability if the evidence supports a finding of a court or jury that he is in fact so disabled.'

  5. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Skerik

    390 S.W.2d 480 (Tex. Civ. App. 1965)

    We think the evidence ample to support the findings. Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Gallardo, CCA (n. r. e.), 359 S.W.2d 933; Consolidated Cas. Ins. Co. v. Baker, CCA (n. r. e.), 297 S.W.2d 706. In re King's Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660.

  6. American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Ellison

    364 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. Civ. App. 1962)   Cited 3 times

    We think our view above expressed is not in conflict with the factual situation detailed in Traders & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Rockey, Tex.Civ.App., 278 S.W.2d 490; Hood v. Tex. Ind. Ins. Co., 146 Tex. 522, 209 S.W.2d 345; Bailey v. Amer. Gen. Ins. Co., 154 Tex. 430, 279 S.W.2d 315; Gen. Acc. Fire and Life Assur. Corp. v. Murphy, Tex.Civ.App., 339 S.W.2d 392, Pt. 3, (n. r. e.); Coleman v. Hartford Acc. and Ind. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 297 S.W.2d 236, Pt. 4; Denbow v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 143 Tex. 455, 186 S.W.2d 236; Tex. Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Polk, Tex.Civ.App., 269 S.W.2d 582, (n. r. e.); Consolidated Underwriters v. Langley, 141 Tex. 78, 170 S.W.2d 463; Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. of Wis. v. Gallardo, Tex.Civ.App., 359 S.W.2d 933, (n. r. e.). Appellant further complains about special issues 14, 15 and 16 of the Court's main charge inquiring whether services of Dr. Bone were reasonably required by appellee and whether appellant refused to furnish those services, and whether $75.00 is a reasonable charge for the services.