Felix Vasquez v. Glens Falls Insurance Company

Fifth Circuit

Felix Vasquez v. Glens Falls Insurance Company

426 F.2d 297, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9201

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMay 15, 1970

Docket29005_1

StatusPublished

This text of 426 F.2d 297 (Felix Vasquez v. Glens Falls Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Felix Vasquez v. Glens Falls Insurance Company, 426 F.2d 297, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9201 (5th Cir. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

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 *298 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.

1

. 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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 *298 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.

1

. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

426 F.2d 297, 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 9201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felix-vasquez-v-glens-falls-insurance-company-ca5-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack