Skip to main content

Bradford E. Larimore v. Employees Retirement System of Texas

Tex. App.—3rd Dist.January 20, 2006No. 03-04-00220-CV
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court affirmed the Board's denial of Larimore's application for occupational disability retirement benefits, finding he failed to establish that his work injury was the primary cause of his disability, as a pre-existing condition from an automobile collision was the substantial contributing factor.

What This Ruling Means

**Bradford Larimore v. Employees Retirement System of Texas** Bradford Larimore, a state employee, applied for occupational disability retirement benefits through the Texas retirement system. He claimed that a work-related injury had disabled him and made him unable to continue working. However, Larimore had also been injured in a car accident before his workplace injury occurred. The court sided with the retirement system and denied Larimore's application. The judges found that Larimore couldn't prove his work injury was the main cause of his disability. Instead, they determined that his pre-existing injuries from the automobile collision were the primary factor making him unable to work. Since the workplace injury wasn't the substantial cause of his disability, he didn't qualify for occupational disability benefits. This case matters for workers because it shows how challenging it can be to get disability benefits when you have pre-existing conditions. If you're injured at work but already have health problems from previous accidents or injuries, you'll need strong evidence to prove that your workplace injury is the main reason you can't work. The retirement system and courts will carefully examine whether your work injury or your previous conditions are primarily responsible for your disability.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

More Rulings in This Case

Other orders and opinions in Bradford E. Larimore v. Employees Retirement System of Texas from the same court.

Similar Rulings

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result
Wright
10th CircuitAug 2001
Defendant Win

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.