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. ADJ8543406
Regular
Jun 01, 2018

JOSE HERNANDEZ vs. ALBA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's denial of sanctions for delayed payment of interpreter services. The Board found that the interpreter services for the Compromise and Release were reasonable and necessary under AD Rule 9795.3. Defendant received the invoice on February 24, 2016, but did not pay it until August 2, 2017, exceeding the 60-day payment requirement of AD Rule 9795.4. Therefore, the Board rescinded the prior findings and returned the matter for further proceedings on the petitions for costs and sanctions.

WCABJoyce Altman InterpretersAD Rule 9795.4AD Rule 9795.3Labor Code Section 5813Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCompromise and ReleaseInterpreter ServicesClaims Administrator
References
8
Case No. 01-17-0002-1912
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 3 v. Charter Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, Local Union No. 3 ("Local 3") sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stay an arbitration initiated by defendant Charter Communications, Inc. ("Charter"). The arbitration concerns a work stoppage and alleged violation of a no-strike clause. The court denied Local 3's motion, ruling that Local 3 failed to demonstrate irreparable harm because it chose not to participate in the arbitration and could later challenge any adverse arbitral award in court. The decision emphasized that the monetary cost of arbitration alone does not constitute irreparable injury and highlighted the importance of demonstrating actual harm.

Arbitration StayPreliminary InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderLabor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseIrreparable HarmArbitrabilityFederal Court ProcedureJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
30
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. SAC 269856
Regular
Apr 01, 2008

SURRINDER DOSANJH vs. METRO MAILING SERVICE, BROADSPIRE, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA)

The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's award of interpreter fees for medical treatment appointments, finding the defendant liable despite contentions of non-liability under AD Rule 9795.3. However, the issue of attorney's fees under Labor Code section 4607 was deferred pending a Supreme Court decision on a similar case concerning enforcement of medical awards. The case is returned to the WCJ for further proceedings on attorney's fees after the Supreme Court ruling.

CIGAAD Rule 9795.3interpreter feesEnglish-Punjabichronic painLabor Code section 4607attorney's feesmedical treatmentenforcement of awarddeferred issue
References
2
Case No. Nos. 3:00-0448; 3:01-0216; 3:02-0129; 3:02-0152
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2003

Southern Electrical Health Fund v. Kelley

These four consolidated actions involve claims under the Miller Act and ERISA, along with breach of contract cross-claims. The Court conducted a bench trial from June 3 to June 6, 2003. The Court found Mr. Cates and Cates, Inc. in contempt for violating a temporary injunction and ordered them to pay a compliance fine. Additionally, the Court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs against Cates, Inc. and Heritage for Miller Act violations and against Mr. Cates for breach of his ERISA fiduciary duties. The cross-claims between KTE and Cates, Inc. were dismissed without prejudice due to a mandatory arbitration clause.

Miller ActERISABreach of ContractContempt of CourtFiduciary DutyJoint EmployerSubcontractor LiabilitySurety BondPension FundsHealth Funds
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Building Industry Fund v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This Opinion and Order addresses defendant Local 3's motion for reconsideration, which the court treated as a new motion for summary judgment, regarding Count Eight of the complaint. The central issue revolves around the application of New York's Martin v. Curran rule, which requires proof of unanimous union membership authorization or ratification for tortious acts to hold an unincorporated labor union liable. Despite plaintiffs' arguments, the court affirmed the continued vitality of the Martin rule in New York. Finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate such unanimous authorization or ratification for either a letter-writing campaign or alleged violent acts, the court concluded that plaintiffs could not recover against Local 3 under state law. Consequently, Local 3's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Count Eight of the complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Summary JudgmentReconsideration MotionLabor LawTortious InterferenceUnion LiabilityUnincorporated AssociationAuthorization and RatificationNew York LawFederal PreemptionPicket Line Violence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gulf Shores Council of Co-Owners, Inc. v. Raul Cantu No. 3 Family Ltd. Partnership

The Fourth Court of Appeals reversed a trial court's judgment concerning a dispute between the Gulf Shores Council of Co-Owners, Inc., and the Raul S. Cantu No. 3 Family Limited Partnership. The core issue was the Council's right to levy fees on unit owners who rented outside the designated rent pool and to prohibit the use of independent leasing agents. The trial court had ruled these actions unenforceable and awarded damages for tortious interference. However, the appellate court found that the Council's fees and prohibitions were reasonable and justified under the condominium's Declaration and Bylaws, and that they had a legal right to interfere with the Partnership's contracts. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the damages awarded to the Partnership and rendered judgment in favor of the Council for unpaid assessments and attorney fees.

Condominium LawProperty RightsRental ManagementHomeowners AssociationTortious InterferenceContract LawAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentUnpaid AssessmentsAttorney Fees
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This opinion addresses a declaratory judgment action brought by Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Madison Square Garden Corporation (collectively, "the Garden") against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("Local 3"). The Garden sought a declaration that they are not liable to Local 3 for contribution or indemnification concerning a judgment previously entered against Local 3 in antecedent civil rights litigation (Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Anderson v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc.). In those prior actions, Local 3 was found liable for intentional discriminatory hiring practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court, presided over by Judge Sand in the Southern District of New York, granted the Garden's motion for summary judgment. The decision ruled that federal law governs, precluding contribution and indemnification under Title VII based on Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers. Furthermore, even if contribution were theoretically available under § 1981, it would not lie for an intentional tortfeasor, and any such claim would be defeated by a release given to the Garden by the original plaintiffs. Indemnity was also denied on similar grounds, emphasizing that an intentional tortfeasor cannot escape liability for deliberate wrongdoing.

Declaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationCivil Rights Act of 1964Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Employment DiscriminationIntentional TortFederal Common Law
References
16
Case No. ADJ10406903
Regular
Jan 11, 2019

LUIS MANUEL MENDEZ SANCHEZ vs. HARTMARK CABINET DESIGN & MANUFACTURING, INC., EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order denying interpreter fees, finding that services for interpreting a Compromise and Release (C&R) may be compensable. The Board clarified that while not explicitly listed in statute, such interpretation could be considered a "similar setting" necessary to ascertain the validity and extent of injury for an applicant with limited English proficiency. The case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings to determine if the interpreter fees were reasonably, actually, and necessarily incurred under Labor Code section 5811 and AD Rule 9795.3.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationInterpreter FeesCompromise and ReleaseLabor Code Section 5811AD Rule 9795.3Judicial EconomyWCJPetition for CostsAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. 362,516-A
Regular Panel Decision

Carrollton-Farmers Branch Independent School District v. Edgewood Independent School District

This case addresses the constitutionality of Texas's public school finance system, specifically Senate Bill 351, following previous rulings in Edgewood I and Edgewood II. The Supreme Court of Texas held Senate Bill 351 invalid on two primary grounds: it levies a state ad valorem tax in violation of Article VIII, Section 1-e of the Texas Constitution, and it levies an ad valorem tax without voter approval in violation of Article VII, Section 3. The court found that the County Education Districts (CEDs) created by the bill, which levy, collect, and distribute property taxes at state-mandated rates without local discretion or voter consent, effectively impose an illegal state tax. While recognizing the Legislature's challenge in creating an efficient school system, the court emphasized that such efforts cannot override other constitutional provisions. The court's ruling on the invalidity of Senate Bill 351 was applied prospectively, deferring its effect until June 1, 1993, to allow the Legislature time to enact a new constitutional school finance plan without disrupting current school operations.

School Finance ReformTexas ConstitutionAd Valorem TaxVoter ApprovalCounty Education DistrictsConstitutional LawPublic Education FundingState Tax ProhibitionEfficiency ClauseLegislative Discretion
References
126
Showing 1-10 of 12,095 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