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. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 13-10-00016-CV, 13-10-00023-CV, 13-10-00059-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Cascos v. Cameron County Attorney

This case consolidates three interlocutory appeals primarily involving a dispute between the Cameron County Commissioners Court and the Cameron County Attorney. Appellants, comprising county officials and attorneys, challenged trial court orders that granted a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction against them, favoring the County Attorney, and denied their plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court conditionally granted the appellants' petition for writ of mandamus, ensuring their right to supersede the temporary injunction during appeal. While dismissing an appeal regarding the temporary restraining orders as moot, the court ultimately dissolved the temporary injunction and reversed the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that the Commissioners Court possesses implied powers to manage county business and employ legal counsel, and the County Attorney does not hold an exclusive right to represent the county in all civil matters, thereby finding the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.

Interlocutory AppealMandamusTemporary InjunctionGovernmental Entity DisputeCounty Attorney DutiesCommissioners Court AuthorityDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRes JudicataMootness Doctrine
References
106
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1994

Austin v. Local 1-2

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated October 17, 1994. The defendants sought to disqualify the plaintiff's attorney, Stuart Bochner, in an action for breach of contract and wrongful discharge. The Supreme Court denied the disqualification motion, and that decision was affirmed on appeal. The court held that Bochner's representation of a separate entity related to the defendant union, on unrelated matters, did not create an adverse effect on his professional judgment. Furthermore, his previous role as general counsel for the union ten years prior was not substantially related to his current representation of the plaintiff, thus not warranting disqualification.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestProfessional EthicsBreach of ContractWrongful DischargePrior RepresentationLegal EthicsAppellate ReviewSupreme Court
References
2
Case No. ADJ9016568
Regular
Feb 23, 2016

JAVIER SOTO CONTRERAS, AMANDA ARANA vs. A.C. CUSTOM CATERING, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, JAVIER SOTO CONTRERAS, ALLMERICA FINANCIAL BENEFIT INSURANCE, THE HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

This case concerns a petition by SCIF (on behalf of A.C. Custom Catering) seeking removal and disqualification of both the applicant's attorney and the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The petition argued the applicant's attorney had a conflict of interest representing two claimants and that the WCJ was biased. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition regarding the attorney's disqualification as untimely. Regarding the WCJ, the Board denied disqualification because the petition lacked specific factual allegations of bias and was also untimely.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJSCIFA.C. Custom Cateringjoint representationconflict of interestwaiveruntimelyjudicial bias
References
3
Case No. ADJ12674446
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

MICHAEL KREZA, SHANNA KREZA vs. CITY OF COSTA MESA FIRE DEPARTMENT, ADMINSURE

Applicant Shanna Kreza, guardian ad Litem for deceased Michael Kreza, sought reconsideration or, alternatively, removal and disqualification of a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) after the WCJ issued an Order Suspending Action. The WCJ's order questioned the requested attorney's fees as excessive, which the applicant argued created an appearance of bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration, deeming the WCJ's order interlocutory. However, the Board granted the petitions for removal and disqualification, finding an appearance of bias by the WCJ due to unqualified opinions on attorney's fees. Consequently, the WCJ was disqualified, their May 12, 2025 Order was rescinded, and the case was returned for reassignment to a new WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFirefighterDeath ClaimAttorney FeesExcessive FeesPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasOrder Suspending Action
References
10
Case No. ADJ10678864
Regular
Aug 08, 2025

ALEX CASTILLO MASIS vs. EAST BAY FOODS INC, EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a Petition for Disqualification filed against a Workers' Compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The petition alleged grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, citing an unqualified opinion or bias. Upon review of the record and the WCJ's report, the Board found the petition lacked sufficient factual allegations, declared under penalty of perjury, to establish disqualification. Although the WCJ suggested sanctions for false statements by applicant's attorney, the Board declined to impose them but admonished the attorney for not being candid and truthful. Therefore, the Petition for Disqualification was denied.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10960Judicial BiasPrejudgmentWCJ ReportSanctionsRule 10421False Declarations
References
8
Case No. 03-12-00309-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2013

Larry F. York// Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation and Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas v. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation And Greg Abbott, Attorney General for the State of Texas// Cross- Larry F. York

This case involves Larry F. York's challenge to an Attorney General's open-records ruling concerning the Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corporation (TGSL). York sought disclosure of various TGSL records, including board meeting minutes, a Strategic Plan, President's Reports, EAS-related documents, and a VFA application. The district court ordered disclosure of the actual minutes and EAS records but allowed TGSL to withhold attachments, the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and pricing information from the VFA application. The Court of Appeals largely sided with York, affirming the disclosure of minutes and EAS records and reversing to order disclosure of the Strategic Plan, President's Reports, and other minute attachments. However, it affirmed the withholding of VFA pricing information and the denial of attorney's fees to York.

Open Meetings ActPublic Information ActGovernment TransparencyStudent LoansGovernmental RecordsCompetitive HarmDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesStatutory ConstructionAppellate Review
References
62
Case No. ADJ944426(VNO 0538295); ADJ7895528
Regular
Jul 03, 2012

DANIEL BELLING vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

Applicant's attorney sent a letter to the judge expressing concern about receiving a "fair shake" in discovery proceedings, which the judge construed as a Petition for Disqualification. However, the applicant's attorney subsequently clarified they did not intend to file such a petition. The Appeals Board dismissed the letter, deeming it insufficient to establish grounds for disqualification. The judge's report detailed the procedural history and found no bias, noting the letter lacked specific facts to support disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311WCJStatus ConferenceDiscovery proceedingsPetition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPriority ConferenceAOE/COEMotion to Quash Deposition
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Attorney General of the State v. Johnson

The Attorney General appealed a judgment awarding Johnson attorney's fees and court costs after a trial court found the Attorney General's fraud claim against Johnson, regarding worker's compensation benefits, to be frivolous. The Attorney General argued that article 8307, section 9a exempted his agency from liability under Chapter 105, that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard, and that Johnson's motion for fees did not comply with section 105.003. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Chapter 105 is applicable to the Attorney General, that the claim lacked arguable basis as Johnson's form did not inquire about other employment and continuous work during benefits was not wrongful, and that Johnson's motion was timely and procedurally compliant.

Attorney's FeesFrivolous ClaimsWorker's Compensation FraudAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationFraudulent ConcealmentTrial Court Judgment AffirmedLitigation ExpensesState Agency Liability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 5,383 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