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. ADJ1153404
Regular
Jan 03, 2014

BARBARA DIEFENBACH, (BARBARA CLARK) vs. SAN JOAQUIN COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Barbara Diefenbach (Applicant) against San Joaquin Community Hospital. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition on its merits, adopting the reasoning of the administrative law judge. Furthermore, the petition was subject to dismissal for failure to serve all adverse parties. The Board also admonished the petitioner for procedural violations, including attaching an unauthorized medical report and filing a supplemental petition improperly.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationDENIEDLabor Code section 5905WCAB Rule 10842WCAB Rule 10848sanctionsLab. Code§ 5813administrative law judge
References
3
Case No. 04-08-00554-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2009

Barbara Jane Irwin v. Mike Irwin, as Representative of the Estate of Richard Lee Irwin

This appeal concerns a summary judgment in favor of the Estate of Richard Lee Irwin against his ex-wife, Barbara Jane Irwin. Richard, an employee of the DEA, had designated Barbara as the primary beneficiary of his FEGLIP life insurance policy, with his sons Mike and John as contingent beneficiaries. After their divorce, Richard updated his will to exclude Barbara but never changed his life insurance beneficiary designation. Upon Richard's death, Barbara received the policy proceeds. Mike, representing Richard's estate, sued Barbara to recover the proceeds, claiming the estate had standing. The trial court granted summary judgment for the estate, imposing a constructive trust on the proceeds. The appellate court reversed and remanded the decision, ruling that the estate lacked standing as it was not a designated beneficiary and life insurance proceeds are nontestamentary assets. The court noted that Mike and John, as contingent beneficiaries, would be the proper plaintiffs.

Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Act (FEGLIA)Beneficiary DesignationDivorce DecreeEstate StandingConstructive TrustLife Insurance ProceedsSummary Judgment AppealNontestamentary AssetsAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
7
Case No. 03-04-00374-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

Mark Pickett and Barbara Pickett v. Texas Mutual Insurance Co., F/K/A Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

This appeal addresses the necessity of exhausting administrative remedies at the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission before filing a lawsuit for bad faith denial or delay of medical benefits. Appellants Mark and Barbara Pickett sued Texas Mutual Insurance Company, alleging bad faith in delaying or denying benefits to Barbara Pickett following a work-related injury. The trial court dismissed most of their claims for lack of jurisdiction due to unexhausted administrative remedies and granted a take-nothing summary judgment on claims arising from three medical disputes for which remedies had been exhausted. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the exhaustion requirement is constitutional and applies broadly, and that Texas Mutual was not liable for collection notices received by the Picketts for benefits ultimately ordered to be paid to Dr. Kiser.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineBad Faith InsuranceMedical BenefitsSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity
References
44
Case No. ADJ7948651
Regular
May 09, 2016

Barbara Tom vs. CITY OF OAKLAND, JT2 INTEGRATED

This case involves a petition for reconsideration by the defendant, City of Oakland, following an award of permanent disability to applicant Barbara Tom. The defendant argued the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) erred by not deferring to the Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) opinion and by not developing the record with the AME. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the AME's opinion deficient. The WCJ's report detailed how the primary treating physician's report was more persuasive and thoroughly reasoned, supporting the WCJ's findings over the AME's.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Primary Treating Physician (PTP)AMA GuidesPermanent Disability RatingCarpal Tunnel SyndromeSubstantial EvidenceWCJ OpinionMedical Opinion Deference
References
2
Case No. 03-19-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2020

Barbara Thompson v. Noah Davis

This is an appeal from a personal-injury lawsuit originally heard in the 423rd District Court of Bastrop County. The appellant, Barbara Thompson, sued the appellee, Noah Davis, following a rear-end collision in November 2015. A jury found Davis negligent and awarded Thompson $5,000 for past medical expenses but zero for future medical expenses, pain, mental anguish, and physical impairment. The district court entered judgment for Thompson totaling $16,901.49. Thompson appealed, challenging the factual sufficiency of the jury's damage awards and alleging an incurable jury argument by defense counsel. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the jury had discretion in assessing damages given conflicting evidence and credibility issues, and that any improper argument by defense counsel was not incurably harmful.

Personal InjuryRear-end CollisionJury VerdictFactual SufficiencyDamagesMedical ExpensesPain and SufferingMental AnguishJury DiscretionWitness Credibility
References
9
Case No. E2015-02262-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2019

State of Tennessee v. Barbara Mae Potter

Barbara Mae Potter was convicted of two counts of first-degree premeditated murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and tampering with evidence, arising from the murders of Billy Clay Payne and Billie Jean Hayworth. The crimes were the culmination of a year-long online and in-person feud between the Potter family and the victims. The defendant, her husband Buddy, and Jamie Curd conspired in the murders, with Buddy being the shooter and Jamie assisting. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the murder and tampering convictions, reinstated the conspiracy conviction, and remanded the case for sentencing on the conspiracy charge. The court addressed issues including venue, prosecutorial conduct, witness testimony, sufficiency of evidence, and motion to sever.

Premeditated MurderConspiracy to MurderTampering with EvidenceCriminal ResponsibilityOnline HarassmentCyberbullyingSocial Media FeudChange of VenueProsecutorial MisconductSufficiency of Evidence
References
38
Case No. 534851
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Barbara Saporito

Claimant Barbara Saporito appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that she voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. Saporito, a court reporter, sustained a work-related back injury in 2004 but was terminated from her job in 2006. She subsequently worked sporadically as a freelance reporter before ceasing employment, seeking additional disability awards for lost time. Although a WCLJ initially awarded benefits, the Board reversed, finding her separation and continued unemployment were not causally related to her disability. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing inconsistencies in Saporito's testimony, her acknowledged lack of medical evidence for significant periods, and the absence of documentary support for her termination as reasons for upholding the Board's finding of voluntary withdrawal.

Voluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketDisability BenefitsCausationSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationMedical Evidence GapsEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCourt Reporter
References
12
Case No. 06-05-00036-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2006

Brookshire Grocery Company v. Barbara Goss

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of an employee, Barbara Goss, against her employer, Brookshire Grocery Company, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Goss was awarded $726,078.50 in damages by a jury for injuries sustained in an accident on Brookshire's premises. Brookshire appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of evidence regarding duty, proximate cause, and damages, as well as alleging charge error. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that there was legally sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on all challenged issues.

Nonsubscriber EmployerEmployee InjuryWorkplace SafetyPremises LiabilityOrdinary NegligenceProximate CauseDamages AwardLoss of Earning CapacityPhysical ImpairmentMedical Expenses
References
38
Case No. 2023-01-8131
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 05, 2025

Ballard, Barbara v. Western Express, Inc.

The employee, Barbara Ballard, appealed an order granting summary judgment to her employer, Western Express, Inc. Ballard reported a left shoulder injury but failed to attend scheduled medical appointments with a panel physician and did not cooperate with written discovery. The employer filed for summary judgment, arguing a lack of medical proof. The trial court granted the motion, and the Appeals Board affirmed, concluding that the employee failed to present sufficient admissible evidence to establish entitlement to further benefits or to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation AppealShoulder InjuryMedical Treatment DenialDiscovery Non-ComplianceEvidentiary BurdenAffirmation of Trial CourtPanel of PhysiciansMissed AppointmentsNo Medical Proof
References
3
Case No. NO. 03-09-00088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2013

Barbara J. Booker v. City of Austin

Barbara J. Booker, a probationary firefighter with the City of Austin (AFD), was terminated due to alleged performance deficiencies. She subsequently sued the City under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), asserting claims of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation. The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Booker's claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that Booker failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her retaliation claims and any pre-termination discriminatory acts. For her job discrimination claims related to termination, the court found insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or to demonstrate that the City's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (poor performance) was pretextual, especially considering the 'same-actor inference' where the same chief hired and fired her.

Probationary FirefighterEmployment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTCHRADisparate TreatmentAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionSame-Actor Inference
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 302 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