Your FREE and easy resource for all things Texas workers' compensation
At a Glance:
Title:
Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Thompson
Date:
March 26, 1941
Citation:
136 Tex. 194
Court:
Texas Supreme Court
Status:
Published Opinion

Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Texas.

FEDERAL UNDERWRITERS EXCHANGE

v.

THOMPSON.

No. 7722.

|

March 27, 1940.

|

Motion for Rehearing Dismissed March 26, 1941.

Attorneys & Firms

*195 **1092 James F. Parker, of Kountze, and Gordon, Sharfstein, Bell & Weinert and John L. Bell, all of Beaumont, for plaintiff in error.

R. A. Richardson, of Kountze, and D. F. Sanders and John A. Veillon, both of Beaumont, for defendant in error.

Opinion

CRITZ, Justice.

This is a Workmen’s Compensation case. It was filed in the District Court of Hardin County, Texas, by D. A. Thompson against Federal Underwriters Exchange to recover compensation for injuries resulting from a hernia alleged to have been received by Thompson while working in the course of his employment for Peavy-Moore Lumber Company. Federal Underwriters Exchange was the Lumber Company’s compensation insurance carrier. The Industrial Accident Board rendered a final award adverse to Thompson in toto, thereby refusing him *196 any compensation whatever. Thompson appealed to the district court, where he contended for and was awarded a judgment against the above-named insurance carrier as for a general injury. On appeal this judgment was affirmed by the Beaumont Court of Civil Appeals. 137 S.W.2d 106. The opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals makes a correct and comprehensive statement of the facts and issues involved. In the interest of brevity we refer to that opinion for a further statement.

A reading of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals in connection with our opinion in National Mutual Casualty Company v. Thomas Jefferson Lowery, 148 S.W.2d 1089, this day decided by this Court, will disclose that the question as to whether Thompson should be compensated as for general injuries, is decided in favor of Thompson by our opinion in the Lowery case just mentioned. The ruling of the Court of Civil Appeals in this case is in harmony with our ruling in the Lowery case, supra.

**1093 We are in accord with the Court of Civil Appeals on the other question discussed by it.

The judgments of the district court and the Court of Civil Appeals are both affirmed.

End of Document
Top