Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Yeldell v. Holiday Hills Retirement and Nursing Center, Inc.green2 sentences2012Co., 339 S.W.3d at 731-32 .3 2 Courts have applied the personal comfort doctrine in determining that compensable injuries occurred when the employee was injured while making a personal call during working hours while on duty at her nursing station, see Yeldell, 701 S.W.2d at 245 ; eating in an employer-provided trailer located on a drilling site, see Prasek 569 S.W.2d at 548 ; and preparing to take a shower at home after being doused with paint and gasoline at the worksite, see Lujan, 756 S.W.2d at 298-99 . 3 Texas Mutual characterizes the continuous coverage doctrine in its brief as a “specia 2012Courts have applied the personal comfort doctrine in determining that compensable injuries occurred when the employee was injured while making a personal call during working hours while on duty at her nursing station, see Yeldell, 701 S.W.2d at 245 ; eating in an employer-provided trailer located on a drilling site, see Prasek 569 S.W.2d at 548 ; and preparing to take a shower at home after being doused with paint and gasoline at the worksite, see Lujan, 756 S.W.2d at 298-99 . 3 . | 1 | 4 |
Employers' Casualty Co. v. Bratchergreen2 sentences2025See Bratcher, 823 S.W.2d at 721 . 2025See Bratcher, 823 S.W.2d at 721 . | 1 | 3 |
Mitchell v. Ellisgreen1 sentence2025See Mitchell v. Ellis, 374 S.W.2d 333 , 335–36 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1963, writ ref’d); Hudiburgh v. Palvic, 274 S.W.2d 94, 98 , 100–01 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1955, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see also Am. | 1 | 1 |
Holditch v. Standard Acc. Ins. Cogreen1 sentence2012Ass’n, 129 Tex. 573 , 105 S.W.2d 192 (1937) (Employee was not in the course and scope of employment when he was killed in a car accident while driving personal vehicle back to his job at funeral home to continue working after dinner break at home.); see also Holditch, 208 F.2d at 722 (Employee was not in the course and scope of employment when she was injured by slip and fall during lunch hour while leaving 12 grocery store, which was adjacent to her workplace, to return to work.); Berry, 907 S.W.2d at 5 (Employee was in the course and scope of employment when he was injured in collision while | 1 | 1 |
Berry v. Gregg Industrial Services, Inc.green1 sentence2012Ass’n, 129 Tex. 573 , 105 S.W.2d 192 (1937) (Employee was not in the course and scope of employment when he was killed in a car accident while driving personal vehicle back to his job at funeral home to continue working after dinner break at home.); see also Holditch, 208 F.2d at 722 (Employee was not in the course and scope of employment when she was injured by slip and fall during lunch hour while leaving 12 grocery store, which was adjacent to her workplace, to return to work.); Berry, 907 S.W.2d at 5 (Employee was in the course and scope of employment when he was injured in collision while | 1 | 1 |
Travelers Insurance Company v. McAllistergreen1 sentence1978See Travelers Insurance Company v. McAllister, 345 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1961, writ ref’d n. r. e.); Texas Employers Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Prasek
green
2 sentences2012Co., 339 S.W.3d at 731-32 .3 2 Courts have applied the personal comfort doctrine in determining that compensable injuries occurred when the employee was injured while making a personal call during working hours while on duty at her nursing station, see Yeldell, 701 S.W.2d at 245 ; eating in an employer-provided trailer located on a drilling site, see Prasek 569 S.W.2d at 548 ; and preparing to take a shower at home after being doused with paint and gasoline at the worksite, see Lujan, 756 S.W.2d at 298-99 . 3 Texas Mutual characterizes the continuous coverage doctrine in its brief as a “specia 2012Courts have applied the personal comfort doctrine in determining that compensable injuries occurred when the employee was injured while making a personal call during working hours while on duty at her nursing station, see Yeldell, 701 S.W.2d at 245 ; eating in an employer-provided trailer located on a drilling site, see Prasek 569 S.W.2d at 548 ; and preparing to take a shower at home after being doused with paint and gasoline at the worksite, see Lujan, 756 S.W.2d at 298-99 . 3 . | 3 | 2009–2012 |
Lujan v. Houston General Insurance Co.
green
2 sentences2012Co., 339 S.W.3d at 731-32 .3 2 Courts have applied the personal comfort doctrine in determining that compensable injuries occurred when the employee was injured while making a personal call during working hours while on duty at her nursing station, see Yeldell, 701 S.W.2d at 245 ; eating in an employer-provided trailer located on a drilling site, see Prasek 569 S.W.2d at 548 ; and preparing to take a shower at home after being doused with paint and gasoline at the worksite, see Lujan, 756 S.W.2d at 298-99 . 3 Texas Mutual characterizes the continuous coverage doctrine in its brief as a “specia 2012Courts have applied the personal comfort doctrine in determining that compensable injuries occurred when the employee was injured while making a personal call during working hours while on duty at her nursing station, see Yeldell, 701 S.W.2d at 245 ; eating in an employer-provided trailer located on a drilling site, see Prasek 569 S.W.2d at 548 ; and preparing to take a shower at home after being doused with paint and gasoline at the worksite, see Lujan, 756 S.W.2d at 298-99 . 3 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Hudiburgh v. Palvic
green
1 sentence2025See Mitchell v. Ellis, 374 S.W.2d 333 , 335–36 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1963, writ ref’d); Hudiburgh v. Palvic, 274 S.W.2d 94, 98 , 100–01 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1955, writ ref’d n.r.e.); see also Am. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Zurich American Insurance Co. v. McVey
green
1 sentence2012Co., 339 S.W.3d at 731-32 .3 2 Courts have applied the personal comfort doctrine in determining that compensable injuries occurred when the employee was injured while making a personal call during working hours while on duty at her nursing station, see Yeldell, 701 S.W.2d at 245 ; eating in an employer-provided trailer located on a drilling site, see Prasek 569 S.W.2d at 548 ; and preparing to take a shower at home after being doused with paint and gasoline at the worksite, see Lujan, 756 S.W.2d at 298-99 . 3 Texas Mutual characterizes the continuous coverage doctrine in its brief as a “specia | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Evans v. Illinois Employers Insurance of Wausau
green
1 sentence2012See Leordeanu, 330 S.W.3d at 245 ; Evans, 790 S.W.2d at 304-05 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Smith v. Texas Employers' Insurance
green
2 sentences2012Ass’n, 129 Tex. 573 , 105 S.W.2d 192 (1937) (Employee was not in the course and scope of employment when he was killed in a car accident while driving personal vehicle back to his job at funeral home to continue working after dinner break at home.); see also Holditch, 208 F.2d at 722 (Employee was not in the course and scope of employment when she was injured by slip and fall during lunch hour while leaving 12 grocery store, which was adjacent to her workplace, to return to work.); Berry, 907 S.W.2d at 5 (Employee was in the course and scope of employment when he was injured in collision while 2012Ass’n, 129 Tex. 573 , 105 S.W.2d 192 (1937) (Employee was not in the course and scope of employment when he was killed in a car accident while driving personal vehicle back to his job at funeral home to continue working after dinner break at home.); see also Holditch, 208 F.2d at 722 (Employee was not in the course and scope of employment when she was injured by slip and fall during lunch hour while leaving 12 grocery store, which was adjacent to her workplace, to return to work.); Berry, 907 S.W.2d at 5 (Employee was in the course and scope of employment when he was injured in collision while | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kelty v. Travelers Insurance Company
green
1 sentence1978This has been referred to as the “personal comfort doctrine.” Appellee asserts, in support of the trial court’s refusal of such instruction, that the evidence did not raise the personal comfort doctrine, and, if appellant was entitled to any instruction, it was the one on the “access doctrine.” That doctrine was discussed in Kelty v. Travelers Insurance Company, 391 S.W.2d 558 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1965, writ ref’d n. r. e.). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.