Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Jerry and Joyce Weaks appealed an adverse summary judgment in Kathleen Jeanette White's suit regarding an executory contract for real property. White sued the Weakses for violations of the Texas Property Code after they demanded payment and removed her water meter. The trial court found the Weakses liable for property code violations and awarded damages and attorney's fees. On appeal, the Weakses challenged the offset calculation, the denial of common law defenses like estoppel and laches, and the attorney's fees award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that common law defenses could not defeat statutory claims and upholding the attorney's fees due to the Weakses' procedural waiver.

Real PropertyExecutory ContractContract for DeedTexas Property CodeSummary JudgmentDamagesAttorney's FeesEstoppelLachesRescission

References

Case No. ADJ300802 (AHM 0109743) ADJ2310921 (AHM 0115931)

Regular

Nov 21, 2008

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, amending the original award to establish a permanent and stationary date of January 3, 2005, for applicant's abdominal hernia injuries. The Board deferred the issues of permanent disability and attorneys' fees, returning the case to the trial level for re-rating based on hernia/abdominal injuries rather than spinal injuries. The Board affirmed the finding of an industrial inguinal hernia injury, while also noting that the defendant did not provide evidence of unreasonable refusal of medical treatment for the hernias.

HerniaUmbilical herniaInguinal herniaLow back painPermanent and stationary dateTemporary total disabilityMedical treatmentAttorney's feesReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board

References

Case No. 2016-05-1093

Regular Panel Decision

May 07, 2018

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Shawn Ogden, a machinist, suffered an arm injury at work, leading to complex regional pain syndrome. A spinal cord stimulator was surgically implanted, which resulted in leg weakness. While recovering, Ogden fell twice at home, becoming a paraplegic. The employer contested the causal link between the work injury and the falls/paralysis, arguing for intervening negligence or a pre-existing heart condition. The trial court found the falls and paralysis were a direct and natural consequence of the compensable work injury, awarding permanent total disability. The Appeals Board affirmed, concluding that Ogden's actions were not negligent and the falls were due to post-operative weakness, not the stairs themselves.

Complex Regional Pain SyndromeSpinal Cord StimulatorParaplegiaPost-operative WeaknessFallsCausationDirect and Natural Consequence RuleIndependent Intervening CauseNegligenceMedical Emergency

References

Case No. VNO 0456809

Regular

Oct 02, 2007

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves Javad Bassiry's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained as a plumber tech. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a finding of fact regarding the specific body parts injured. Ultimately, the Board affirmed the original decision but with the clarified finding of injury to the applicant's left shoulder, neck, left arm, left wrist, and lower abdominal muscle.

Javad BassiryAmerican Residential ServicesZurich North AmericaVNO 0456809ReconsiderationJuly 30 2007Plumber techOccupational Group No. 481March 8 2002Left shoulder

References

Case No. ADJ6757080

Regular

Jul 23, 2012

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case concerns a library page's permanent disability rating for a right shoulder injury. The agreed medical evaluator combined ratings for loss of motion and weakness/grip strength, exceeding AMA Guides limitations for combining such impairments. The Appeals Board found the physician's report insufficient to rebut AMA Guide standards or explain the combined rating. Consequently, the permanent disability award was reduced from 46% to 20%.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGrace AokiCity of TorrancePermissibly Self-InsuredReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardPermanent DisabilityAgreed Medical EvaluatorSeymour L. AlbanPetition for Reconsideration

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 04, 1977

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed March 4, 1977, found claimant’s phlebitis causally related to a September 23, 1973 accident. Additionally, the claimant suffered a consequential accident on January 1, 1975, fracturing her left ankle due to weakness in her right foot. This determination was based on Dr. F. Hudak’s medical testimony and was found to have substantial support in the record. The appellate court affirmed the board's decision.

Workers CompensationPhlebitisAnkle FractureCausal RelationConsequential AccidentMedical TestimonyBoard DecisionAppealAffirmed

References

Case No. ADJ8663592, ADJ8663593

Regular

Feb 09, 2018

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, upholding the WCJ's report. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, which the defendant failed to demonstrate. The Board agreed with the WCJ that the defendant's arguments regarding discovery and alleged lack of notice were insufficient to warrant removal, as reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board noted that the applicant's potential unawareness of a hearing was a weak excuse, but still appropriate grounds for rescheduling the settlement conference.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMandatory Settlement ConferenceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationDue Process of LawEqual ProtectionWCJ ReportApplicant Counsel

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Jefferson County Court convicting her of assault in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, following severe injuries to her foster child. The victim suffered a head injury, resulting in a coma and paralysis, and an abdominal injury, both requiring surgery. The defendant's statements to police were deemed voluntary, despite claims of Miranda violations and coercion. The appellate court rejected arguments regarding jury selection, legal sufficiency, and the weight of the evidence. The judgment of conviction was unanimously affirmed.

Criminal LawAssaultChild EndangermentMiranda RightsJury SelectionSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewFoster ChildHead Injury

References

Case No. 2015-18-2120

Regular Panel Decision

May 20, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Employee Aaron Stanley sought expedited medical benefits for back and abdominal strains, allegedly sustained from heavy lifting at Walmart. His authorized treating physician, Dr. Frank Thomas, opined the injuries were work-related. However, Walmart denied the claim, citing inconsistent statements from Stanley regarding the injury's mechanism and lack of a specific incident. The Court found the proof equivocal and that Stanley failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, thus denying his request for reinstitution of medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsBack InjuryAbdominal StrainCausationBurden of ProofEmployment InjuryInconsistent TestimonyMedical Treatment Denial

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Claimant, a railroad track employee, experienced weakness on his left side while at work and was later diagnosed with a stroke. He applied for workers' compensation benefits, but both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined there was no prima facie medical evidence of a causally related injury. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the claimant was entitled to a statutory presumption of causality since the employer did not refute that the symptoms began at work. The case was remitted to the Board to allow the employer to rebut the presumption and, if successful, for the claimant to present further evidence.

Workers' CompensationStrokeCausal RelationshipStatutory PresumptionPrima Facie Medical EvidenceRailroad IndustryAppealReversalRemittalEmployer Liability

References

Showing 1-10 of 60 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

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

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Real PropertyExecutory ContractContract for DeedTexas Property CodeSummary JudgmentDamagesAttorney's FeesEstoppelLachesRescission

References

Case No. ADJ300802 (AHM 0109743) ADJ2310921 (AHM 0115931)

Regular

Nov 21, 2008

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

HerniaUmbilical herniaInguinal herniaLow back painPermanent and stationary dateTemporary total disabilityMedical treatmentAttorney's feesReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board

References

Case No. 2016-05-1093

Regular Panel Decision

May 07, 2018

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Complex Regional Pain SyndromeSpinal Cord StimulatorParaplegiaPost-operative WeaknessFallsCausationDirect and Natural Consequence RuleIndependent Intervening CauseNegligenceMedical Emergency

References

Case No. VNO 0456809

Regular

Oct 02, 2007

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Javad BassiryAmerican Residential ServicesZurich North AmericaVNO 0456809ReconsiderationJuly 30 2007Plumber techOccupational Group No. 481March 8 2002Left shoulder

References

Case No. ADJ6757080

Regular

Jul 23, 2012

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 04, 1977

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Workers CompensationPhlebitisAnkle FractureCausal RelationConsequential AccidentMedical TestimonyBoard DecisionAppealAffirmed

References

Case No. ADJ8663592, ADJ8663593

Regular

Feb 09, 2018

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMandatory Settlement ConferenceSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationDue Process of LawEqual ProtectionWCJ ReportApplicant Counsel

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Criminal LawAssaultChild EndangermentMiranda RightsJury SelectionSufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewFoster ChildHead Injury

References

Case No. 2015-18-2120

Regular Panel Decision

May 20, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsBack InjuryAbdominal StrainCausationBurden of ProofEmployment InjuryInconsistent TestimonyMedical Treatment Denial

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Workers' CompensationStrokeCausal RelationshipStatutory PresumptionPrima Facie Medical EvidenceRailroad IndustryAppealReversalRemittalEmployer Liability

References

Showing 1-10 of 60 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

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