CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 13-13-00463-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2013

the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. John Doe

John Doe sued the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, alleging sexual assault by Eustacio Munioz and seeking damages based on vicarious and direct liability theories. The Church moved for summary judgment, asserting the claims were time-barred. The trial court denied the motion without stating its reasons. The Church petitioned the Court of Appeals for a permissive interlocutory appeal, arguing controlling questions of law regarding the statute of limitations and tolling doctrines like duress and continuing tort. The appellate court denied the petition, finding that the absence of a substantive ruling by the trial court prevented the identification of a clear controlling question of law, thus failing to meet the requirements for a permissive appeal.

Permissive appealInterlocutory orderSummary judgmentStatute of limitationsTollingDuressContinuing tort doctrineControlling question of lawAppellate procedureTexas law
References
12
Case No. 13-06-471-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2008

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System D/B/A Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial

This case involves an appeal from summary judgments. Appellants (Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C., collectively "Texas Treasure") contested the trial court's decision in favor of appellee (Christus Spohn Health System d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial, "Christus"). The dispute arose from medical expenses incurred by a seaman, Judy Ann Lanado, employed by Texas Treasure, who suffered severe brain damage after surgery at Christus. Texas Treasure sought to avoid liability for the entire hospital bill and claimed equitable subrogation. The appellate court affirmed the denial of Texas Treasure's motion for summary judgment on its plea in intervention but reversed the granting of Christus's motions for summary judgment on its counterclaim and Texas Treasure's plea in intervention, remanding for further proceedings to determine negligence and attributable expenses.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSworn AccountVerified DenialDue ProcessEquitable SubrogationMaintenance and CureMaritime LawAlien CrewmanHospital Expenses
References
52
Case No. 03-97-00043-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 1997

Simplex Electric Corp. v. Warren Holcomb

Simplex Electric Corp. appealed a district court judgment that affirmed a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission appeals panel decision. The panel ruled that Simplex lacked standing to dispute a claim's compensability because its insurance carrier had inadvertently missed the statutory 60-day deadline to contest the claim. Simplex argued it had a right to contest when the carrier accepts liability, but the court concluded that an inadvertent failure to act does not constitute acceptance. The court affirmed the district court's judgment, stating that allowing the employer to contest after the deadline would contravene the purpose of the 60-day limitation period.

Workers' CompensationStandingCompensabilityInsurance CarrierEmployer RightsStatutory InterpretationTexas LawAppeals PanelDeadlineWaiver
References
10
Case No. NO. 2-09-151-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2009

Victor McKoy v. City of Fort Worth, Texas

This Texas Workers' Compensation Act case addresses the applicability of waiver provisions for contested injury claims. Appellant Victor McKoy, a City employee, suffered a knee injury, which the City of Fort Worth initially accepted as compensable. Subsequent medical evaluations revealed additional knee conditions (Baker’s cyst, chondromalacia, and bursitis) which the City contested. The core dispute was whether the City's failure to contest these new diagnoses within the initial 60-day period, as per Labor Code section 409.021(c), constituted a waiver of its right to contest compensability. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that the waiver provision did not apply to disputes regarding the extent of an injury once compensability was accepted. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in State Office of Risk Mgmt. v. Lawton, which clarified that a 45-day deadline applies to disputes concerning the extent of an injury, not the 60-day compensability waiver.

Workers' Compensation ActWaiver ProvisionCompensability DisputeExtent of InjurySummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeAdministrative CodeKnee InjuryBaker's CystBursitis
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2008

Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. v. Christus Spohn Health System

Appellants Day Cruises Maritime, L.L.C. and Corpus Christi Day Cruise, L.L.C. appealed summary judgments in favor of Christus Spohn Health System regarding medical expenses for Judy Ann Lanado, a seaman who suffered severe brain damage. Christus sought payment based on a sworn account, a guarantee, and maritime maintenance and cure. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Christus's counterclaim, finding an ineffective sworn denial and Christus's lack of standing for the guarantee. It also found a material fact issue regarding the reasonableness of medical charges under maintenance and cure. The court affirmed the denial of equitable subrogation to appellants but remanded for a determination of Christus's potential negligence affecting the medical bill.

Maritime LawSummary JudgmentMaintenance and CureEquitable SubrogationSworn AccountDue ProcessAlien CrewmanMedical ExpensesTexas LawAppellate Procedure
References
52
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simplex Electric Corp. v. Holcomb

Simplex Electric Corporation appealed a district court judgment that affirmed a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission appeals panel decision. The core issue was whether Simplex, an employer, had standing to contest the compensability of an employee's claim after its insurance carrier failed to meet the statutory 60-day deadline for contesting liability. Simplex argued that Texas Labor Code section 409.011(b)(4) allowed them to contest if the carrier accepted liability, interpreting the carrier's inadvertent failure to act as an acceptance. However, the court disagreed, holding that an inadvertent failure to act does not constitute an acceptance. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the agency's interpretation was reasonable and consistent with the statute's plain language and the purpose of the 60-day limitations period.

Workers' CompensationStandingTexas Labor CodeInsurance Carrier LiabilityStatutory DeadlineCompensabilityEmployer RightsAppellate ReviewJudicial InterpretationAgency Decision
References
9
Case No. 03-07-00202-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2008

Hartford Insurance Company v. John Crain

Hartford Insurance Company appealed the dismissal of its lawsuit seeking judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) appeals panel decision. The central issue was whether the 30-day deadline of the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or the 40-day deadline of the Texas Labor Code applied to judicial reviews of spinal surgery medical necessity disputes. The trial court had granted John Crain's plea to the jurisdiction, ruling Hartford's appeal was untimely under the 30-day APA deadline. The appellate court determined that the more specific 40-day deadline outlined in Labor Code section 410.252 governs all appeals-panel decisions. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Judicial Review DeadlineStatutory InterpretationTexas Administrative Procedure ActWorkers' Compensation AppealsSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to JurisdictionSpinal Surgery Medical NecessityLabor Code Section 410.252Appellate Court DecisionWorkers' Comp Dispute Resolution
References
12
Case No. ADJ3107792 (AHM 0148954)
Regular
Apr 09, 2012

EDGAR QUIJADA vs. ORE-CAL CORPORATION, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration that was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) as untimely. The original order was issued on October 18, 2011, but the petition was not filed until November 22, 2011, 35 days later. California law strictly enforces a 25-day deadline for filing such petitions, with this time limit being jurisdictional. The WCAB also noted that even if they had wanted to grant reconsideration on their own motion, the 60-day window had expired before the petition reached their attention. Therefore, the WCAB had no choice but to dismiss the petition due to its tardiness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitsLien ClaimantAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationService by MailLabor Code
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bressler

Carbon Investment Partners LLC and Carbon Master Fund LP moved to extend deadlines to object to debtor Lee Alexander Bressler's discharge under sections 523(c) and 727 of the Bankruptcy Code. Carbon argued that the 60-day deadline should run from the date the creditors' meeting actually took place, not the first scheduled date, and claimed an oral agreement with Bressler's counsel for an extension. The court, citing unambiguous language in Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 4007 and their 1999 amendments, ruled that the deadline is calculated from the *first date set* for the 341 Meeting, making Carbon's motion untimely. The court also rejected Carbon's equitable arguments, emphasizing that only the court can grant extensions and reliance on an unapproved oral agreement was unreasonable. While acknowledging Bressler's alleged misconduct, the court found the circumstances not 'extraordinary' enough for equitable tolling. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing for potential future objections under Bankruptcy Rule 4004(b)(2) if new facts emerge.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7Discharge ObjectionsBankruptcy RulesDeadline ExtensionEquitable TollingEquitable EstoppelCreditors' MeetingUntimely MotionFraudulent Conduct
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 3,030 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational