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. ADJ1421024 (AHM 0105331) ADJ3172700 (AHM 0130888)
Regular

ALICIA URBANO vs. EMPLOYERS RESOURCE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This order denies Alicia Urbano's Petition for Reconsideration in her workers' compensation case against Employers Resource and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) adopted the findings and reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Therefore, the WCAB has concluded that reconsideration of its previous decision is not warranted. The petition for reconsideration is formally denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportDeny ReconsiderationADJ1421024ADJ3172700Alicia UrbanoEmployers ResourceLiberty Mutual Insurance CompanyAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. E2012-02614-COA-R3-PT
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2013

In Re: Alicia K.A.

Linda J.M.A. (Mother) appealed the Juvenile Court's decision to terminate her parental rights to Alicia K.A. The State of Tennessee Department of Children’s Services (DCS) initiated the termination proceedings, citing grounds of abandonment, persistent conditions endangering the child, and Mother's mental incompetence. The Juvenile Court found clear and convincing evidence supporting all grounds for termination and that it was in the child's best interest. Mother's history of inconsistent statements, admitted lies to various parties, and unstable relationships with abusive men significantly impacted her credibility and ability to provide a safe home. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Juvenile Court's judgment, upholding the termination of Mother's parental rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentMental IncompetenceDomestic ViolenceChild NeglectFoster CarePsychological EvaluationCredibility IssuesUnstable RelationshipsChild Support Arrearage
References
15
Case No. 2019-03475; Docket Nos. B-762-18, B-763-18, B-764-18, B-765-18
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2020

Matter of Margaret K.K. (Alicia A.)

Alicia A. (mother) appealed the Family Court of Rockland County's order terminating her parental rights to her four children due to mental illness. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal concerning two children (William K. and Margaret K. K.) as academic because they had reached the age of majority. For the remaining children, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding clear and convincing evidence that the mother's mental illnesses (bipolar disorder, ADHD, and PTSD) rendered her unable to provide proper care. The court also determined that the mother received effective assistance of counsel, despite counsel not attending a court-ordered psychological examination, given counsel's detailed cross-examination of the evaluator and securing an independent psychiatric evaluation. The decision upheld the termination of parental rights for the children still under the court's jurisdiction.

Parental Rights TerminationMental Illness GroundIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewSocial Services Law § 384-bFamily Court ActChild NeglectBipolar DisorderPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAttention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder
References
17
Case No. 03-94-00668-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 1995

Alicia Moreno v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Alicia Moreno appealed an adverse default judgment by writ of error against Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company. The appeal challenged a district court's default judgment that set aside a workers' compensation award previously granted to Moreno by the Workers' Compensation Commission. Moreno raised several points of error, including non-compliance of the citation with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 16 (regarding endorsement of receipt date/hour), the return's failure to show server authorization, a discrepancy between the service address and the citation's address, and non-compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 239a concerning notice of default judgment. The appellate court affirmed the default judgment, ruling that minor citation errors were not grounds for reversal, official signatures on returns fulfilled authorization requirements, and address discrepancies did not void service. It also held that Rule 239a violations should be challenged in a bill of review, not a writ of error, and clarified that due process concerns under *Peralta* apply only where a defendant was not served with process.

Default JudgmentWrit of ErrorWorkers' CompensationProcedural RulesService of ProcessCitationDue ProcessBill of ReviewAppellate ReviewTexas Rules of Civil Procedure
References
20
Case No. 13-99-814-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Lopez, Alicia

This is an interlocutory appeal challenging a trial court's order certifying a class action. The appellees, Alicia Lopez, Adan Munoz, Jr., Juan Llanes, Diana Moreno, and Albert Alaniz, sued their automobile insurance carriers, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, alleging wrongful failure to pay adequate dividends to policyholders despite significant corporate surpluses, breach of contract, and fraud. Appellants, State Farm and Wendy L. Gramm, contested the class certification on grounds of lack of jurisdiction, absence of a viable cause of action (challenging typicality), and antagonistic interests among class members (challenging adequate representation). The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's class certification order, ruling that the trial court had jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in finding that the class met the typicality and adequate representation requirements.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealInsurance LawDividendsPolicyholdersJurisdictionTypicalityAdequate RepresentationAbuse of DiscretionTexas Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2010

In re Alicia G.

The case concerns a petition for permanent neglect filed by Heartshare Human Services against Hanna Muhammad and Al G., the incarcerated parents of Alicia. The court examined whether the agency made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and if the parents adequately planned for Alicia's future, considering their incarceration. The petition against the mother, Hanna Muhammad, was dismissed as the agency failed to convincingly prove a lack of planning or cooperation. However, the petition against the father, Al G., was granted due to his failure to plan, with his disposition adjourned to a later date. The decision highlights the nuanced application of Social Services Law § 384-b for incarcerated parents.

Permanent NeglectIncarcerated ParentsSocial Services LawParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsParental PlanningFoster CareChild WelfareNew York Family LawChild Best Interests
References
10
Case No. W2022-00239-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2024

State of Tennessee, ex rel., Alicia Janelle Collins v. Vikramjeet Sethi Singh

The State of Tennessee sought child support for a minor child from Vikramjeet Sethi Singh. The Juvenile Court for Shelby County, finding no reliable evidence of Father’s income, imputed the statutory median gross income. Father appealed, challenging the child support amount and the reliability finding. The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court erred by not adequately assessing Father's income potential separately from his actual income's reliability. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the child support award and remanded the case for further proceedings, emphasizing a proper analysis of Father's income potential or willful underemployment based on specific statutory criteria.

Child Support DisputeIncome Imputation ErrorWillful Underemployment AnalysisParental Earning CapacityAppellate Court DecisionJuvenile Court AppealTennessee Child Support GuidelinesWitness CredibilityFinancial Evidence ReliabilityRetroactive Child Support
References
37
Case No. 2021-60-2344
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2025

HOWARD, ALICIA v. DAVIDSON TRANSIT ORG.

This case involves an employee, Alicia Howard, who sustained injuries from a work-related fall and sought additional medical treatment, reimbursement for unauthorized medical expenses, and temporary disability benefits from her employer, Davidson Transit Org. Ms. Howard's authorized doctors placed her at maximum medical improvement before her termination and found no objective basis for her ongoing pain or need for further treatment causally related to her fall. The Court denied Ms. Howard's requests, concluding that she failed to overcome the authorized doctors' opinions regarding causation and the necessity of continued care for her current symptoms. However, the employer must continue to pay for medical care from authorized physicians for injuries causally related to her fall.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical Treatment DenialTemporary Disability BenefitsCausationMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingMedical ExaminationsOrthopedicsPhysiatry
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2010

Briggs v. Women in Need, Inc.

Alicia Briggs, a pro se plaintiff, sued Women in Need, Inc. (WIN) for alleged violations of Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, claiming unlawful termination due to her pregnancy and related medical conditions. Briggs went on medical leave for a high-risk pregnancy, gave birth via C-section, and was later informed she was terminated after requesting a specific shift upon her return. WIN moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Briggs refused her assigned schedule. The Court denied WIN's motion, finding Briggs had plausibly alleged a prima facie case of discrimination, citing the close temporal proximity between her pregnancy and termination, and her qualifications for the role. The matter was recommitted to the assigned magistrate judge for supervision of discovery and pre-trial matters.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIWrongful TerminationMotion to DismissPrima Facie CaseCivil Rights ActFederal Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewHigh-Risk Pregnancy
References
45
Case No. ADJ2409827 (VNO 0509989)
Regular
Apr 17, 2014

ALICIA EVANS vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior decision concerning Alicia Evans and Southern California Gas Company. While the lien claimant's petition touched upon sanctions, it failed to meet the procedural requirements for reconsideration under Labor Code sections 5902 and 5904, and WCAB Rules 10842, 10846, and 10852. Specifically, the petition lacked detailed grounds, specific record references, and legal arguments, instead presenting a conclusory assertion that the facts mandated a win. Consequently, the Board adopted the judge's report and denied the petition.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561bad faithfrivolous conductlien claimantsanctionsLab. Code§ 5902
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 64 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