FELIX VASQUEZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
GLENS FALLS INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's finding that the injury claimed in the suit was the same as the injury before the Industrial Accident Board was not clearly erroneous.
Plaintiff sued for workers' compensation benefits after the Industrial Accident Board awarded him a lesser amount. The trial court entered judgment fo…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Summary Calendar Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Felix Vasquez brought this suit to recover benefits payable under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Act, Tex.Rev. Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8306 et seq. (1967), for an injury he allegedly sustained while working in the course of his employment. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8307, § 5 (1967); Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Cotton, Tex.Civ.App., 1969, 443 S.W. 2d 423, 426. Defendant is the workmen’s compensation insurance carrier for plaintiff’s employer. After a trial to the court, the District Judge granted a judgment in favor of Vasquez in the amount of $10,244.45. Earlier, Vasquez had had a hearing before the Industrial Accident Board for the State of Texas. The Board had awarded Vasquez $140 based upon his claim. From the judgment of the District Court, the insurer appeals.
The single question presented on this appeal is whether the District Court’s finding that the injury about which Vasquez complained in this suit was the same as the injury providing the basis for his claim before the Industrial Accident Board, so as to entitle Vasquez to a judgment under the Work men’s Compensation Act, Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat.Ann. art. 8307 § 5 (1967); e. g., Huff v. Insurance Company of North America, Tex.Civ.App., 1965, 394 S.W. 2d 849, 852, was clearly erroneous.1 Fed. R.Civ.P. 52(a). After a careful review of the record, we are unable to conclude that this determination was wrong. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. Cf. United States for Use and Benefit of Citizens National Bank of Orlando v. Stringfellow, 5 Cir., 1969, 414 F. 2d 696, 699; Chaney v. City of Galveston, 5 Cir., 1966, 368 F. 2d 774, 776.
Affirmed.
. We have concluded on the merits that this case is of the character that does not justify oral argument. Therefore, we have directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to notify the parties of this action in writing. 5 Cir.R. 18; see Huth v. Southern Pacific Co., 5 Cir., 1969, 417 F. 2d 526, 527-530; Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5 Cir., 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, 805-808.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Huth v. S. Pac. Co., 417 F.2d 526 (5th Cir. 1969)
- Chaney v. City OF Galveston, 368 F.2d 774 (5th Cir. 1966)
- The United States For the Use & Benefit of Citizens Nat'l Bank OF Orlando v. Stringfellow, 414 F.2d 696 (5th Cir. 1969)