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. ADJ7103630
Regular
May 21, 2012

DENISE SANCHES vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves Denise Sanches' workers' compensation claim against the County of Sacramento. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sanches' Petition for Removal as untimely. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed on March 8, 2012, which was more than the allowed 25 days after the February 13, 2012, decision. This delay violated the time limits prescribed by 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 10843 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1013.

Petition for RemovalUntimelyDecision DateFiling Date25 Days20 Days8 Cal. Code Regs. 10843Code of Civil Procedure § 1013Served by MailDismissed
References
0
Case No. 03-98-00533-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1999

Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. 3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc.

3 Beall Brothers 3, Inc. (Bealls), a fiscal year taxpayer, sued the Comptroller for a refund of an "additional tax" after its merger, claiming the tax was unconstitutional as it resulted in fiscal year taxpayers paying tax on earned surplus over a longer period than calendar year taxpayers upon ceasing business. The district court sided with Bealls. However, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the additional tax. The court found the tax rationally related to legitimate state purposes of revenue generation and mitigating fiscal effects of corporate reorganizations, and it did not violate equal protection, equal and uniform taxation, or the federal commerce clause. The court determined the tax applied even-handedly based on previously untaxed earned surplus and Bealls had a substantial nexus with Texas.

Franchise TaxAdditional TaxConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionCommerce ClauseTaxationFiscal YearCalendar YearCorporate ReorganizationEarned Surplus
References
36
Case No. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. ADJ7535016, ADJ7536297, ADJ8099855
Regular
Sep 05, 2013

DAVID MURILLO-RAMOS vs. NATIONAL RETAIL TRANSPORTATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal is based on two procedural defects: the petition was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902, and there was no proof of proper service under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10565(d). The Board cites prior case law supporting dismissal for these types of violations. Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by David Murillo-Ramos against National Retail Transportation and Travelers Insurance is formally rejected.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalVerificationLabor Code section 5902Proof of ServiceCal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10565(d)WCJ ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
2
Case No. ADJ3218661 (OAK 0339889)
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

CHANCE ROLLINS vs. JOHN MARTIN STABLES, INC.; AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE administered by AIG, CLAIMS SERVICES

The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration, finding the WCJ's ruling was not a final order. However, the Board granted removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and denied the applicant's request for a neurology consultation under Labor Code §4601(a). The matter was returned to the trial level with instructions to issue an order for a new QME panel in neurology, as Dr. Jamasbi's request for a consultative neurological evaluation constituted good cause for a new panel under 8 Cal. Code Regs. §31.7. Attorney fees for the ex parte communication were upheld.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code 4601(a)Labor Code 4062.3QMEAgreed Medical EvaluatorNeurological ConsultMedical DirectorSpecialty Panel
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2000

Penta v. Related Companies

Vincenzo Penta, a carpenter, was injured when struck by a crane hook on the 17th floor of a building under construction. Plaintiffs alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on Industrial Code regulations 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i) and 23-8.2 (c) (3). The Supreme Court initially found a question of fact regarding 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i), but the Appellate Division determined this regulation was inapplicable as a crane hook is not a 'moving part' requiring guards. The court agreed that 12 NYCRR 23-8.2 (c) (3) was not applicable since the crane was not hoisting a load at the time of the accident. However, the Supreme Court properly denied dismissal of the common-law negligence claim under Labor Law § 200, as defendants failed to establish prima facie that they did not supervise or control the crane's operation. The order was modified to grant dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (i) and affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentCrane InjuryIndustrial Code ViolationsLabor Law Section 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceLabor Law Section 200Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
10
Case No. ADJ10886261
Regular
Nov 14, 2018

LUIS SANDOVAL vs. PRIME TECH CABINETS, INC, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The original order found violations of Labor Code section 4062.3(b) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 35(c), striking the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. This reversal was based on a subsequent en banc decision in *Suon v. California Dairies* that clarified the interpretation and remedies for violations of section 4062.3(b). The trial judge will reconsider the section 4062.3(b) issue and potentially other previously raised issues concerning the QME's reporting.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportingLabor Code section 4062.3(b)California Code of Regulations section 35(c)En Banc DecisionSuon v. California DairiesRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
1
Case No. 08-04-00255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2005

in Re: Big 8 Food Stores, Ltd.

Big 8 Food Stores, Ltd. (Relator) sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Javier Alvarez (Respondent) after the trial court denied Big 8's motion to compel arbitration with its employee, Maria Marquez (Real Party in Interest). Marquez, an employee injured on the job, sued Big 8 for negligence. Big 8 asserted the existence of a signed arbitration agreement, which Marquez claimed she did not understand and was fraudulently induced into signing. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court found that Marquez had signed the agreement, received benefits under it, and there was no evidence of mental incapacity or fraud. The court also determined that Big 8's business operations involved interstate commerce, making the FAA applicable. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationMandamusEmployment AgreementNegligenceFederal Arbitration ActContract LawUnconscionabilityInterstate CommerceTexas LawAppellate Review
References
42
Case No. 14-10-00756-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2011

Otis Lee Harris, Sr. v. Rocking 8 Transportation., Inc.

Otis Lee Harris, Sr. appealed the granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of Rocking 8 Transportation, Inc. Harris alleged breach of contract, claiming Rocking 8 failed to provide a promised lumbar support, leading to a debilitating back injury. Rocking 8 asserted an affirmative defense, claiming it was a subscriber to the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and therefore protected by its exclusive remedy provision. The appellate court found that Rocking 8 failed to meet its summary judgment burden by not conclusively proving it had workers' compensation insurance at the time Harris's alleged injury occurred. Specifically, the insurance policy provided by Rocking 8 expired before the end of Harris's employment, and the pleadings did not unequivocally establish the injury date within the coverage period. Therefore, the trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractAffirmative DefenseExclusive RemedyTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeInsurance CoverageEmployment Law
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 7,479 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