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. LAO 0832818, VNO 0508728
Regular
Jan 22, 2008

TOMAS ALONZO (deceased) BEATRIZ ALONZO (widow) vs. NHAN VAN NGUYEN aka KEVIN CONSTRUCTION, illegally uninsured, DAVID BENAVIDES; PACIFIC SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a deceased worker, Tomas Alonzo, whose widow claims he was an employee of homeowner David Benavides. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Alonzo was Benavides' employee because Alonzo's direct employer, Kevin Construction, was an unlicensed contractor. California law presumes unlicensed contractors and their employees are employees of the hiring party to ensure compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTomas AlonzoBeatriz AlonzoNhan Van NguyenKevin Constructionillegally uninsuredDavid BenavidesPacific Specialty Insurance CompanyLAO 0832818VNO 0508728
References
3
Case No. NO. 09-13-00513-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2014

in Re Commitment of Alonzo May

Alonzo May appealed from a jury verdict civilly committing him as a sexually violent predator under the Texas Health & Safety Code Ann. §§ 841.001-.151. May raised two issues: the trial court's striking of his counterclaim for declaratory judgment regarding the statute's unconstitutionality, and its alleged failure to properly take judicial notice of two U.S. Supreme Court cases, leading to denied jury instruction requests. The Court of Appeals found May's issues without merit. It affirmed the trial court's decision to strike the counterclaim, noting May could and did raise constitutionality as an affirmative defense. The court also held that the trial court properly took judicial notice of the law and did not abuse its discretion in refusing May's proposed jury instructions, as the given charge closely tracked the statutory language.

Civil CommitmentSexually Violent PredatorConstitutional LawJury InstructionsStatutory InterpretationAffirmative DefenseJudicial NoticeAppellate ReviewTexas Court of AppealsHealth and Safety Code
References
11
Case No. 02-10-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2011

Alonzo Bradley v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.

Alonzo Bradley sued Pitney Bowes, Inc. and SupportKids, Inc., alleging wrongful wage garnishment and child support collection based on a void Louisiana order. Bradley also claimed Pitney Bowes terminated his employment in retaliation for a separate lawsuit challenging the void order, contrary to their stated reason of poor job performance. He sought an injunction against wage withholding and reinstatement to his former position. The trial court granted summary judgment for Pitney Bowes and a default judgment for Bradley against SupportKids. On appeal, the Second District of Texas, Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Bradley failed to present a complete appellate record, thus not demonstrating reversible error. The court also determined that Pitney Bowes was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law regarding its compliance with the withholding order and the lack of causation in the retaliation claim.

Child SupportWage GarnishmentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReversible ErrorRetaliatory DischargeEmployment LawFamily LawTexas AppealsVoid Order
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonzo v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

Plaintiff Luis R. Alonzo filed an employment discrimination action against The Chase Manhattan Bank and several individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on race, color, and national origin, and retaliation. Alonzo, a Hispanic employee, claimed he was subjected to racial slurs and subsequently terminated. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies for race and color claims and lack of individual liability under Title VII. The court denied the motion regarding race discrimination, finding that "Hispanic" could encompass race for EEOC investigation purposes, but granted the dismissal of color discrimination claims and claims against the individual defendants, citing no personal liability under Title VII.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIEEOC ChargeExhaustion of Administrative RemediesNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationIndividual LiabilityJudgment on PleadingsHispanic Identity
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ewald v. Wornick Family Foods Corp.

Deborah Ewald sued her employer, Wornick Family Foods, and co-worker Oscar Alonzo, alleging sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge, assault and battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court entered a default judgment against Alonzo and granted summary judgment in favor of Wornick. Ewald appealed the summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment concerning intentional infliction of emotional distress and retaliatory discharge, and limited compensatory damages for lost wages to the date the business closed. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on the claims of sexual harassment and assault and battery against Wornick, finding that material factual disputes existed.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliatory DischargeAssault and BatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment AppealEmployment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro QuoRespondeat SuperiorTexas Human Rights Act
References
10
Case No. 2015-05-0652
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2016

Osborne, Alonzo, Jr. v. Beacon Transport, LLC

In this interlocutory appeal, the employer challenged the trial court’s award of medical benefits. The employee, a truck driver, alleged injuries from a motor vehicle accident after suffering a syncopal episode while driving. The employer argued the injuries did not primarily arise out of employment due to an idiopathic condition. The trial court ordered the employer to pay certain medical expenses. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order as modified, concluding that operating a vehicle is a hazard incident to employment, making the injuries compensable despite an idiopathic event. However, the Board modified the order by removing the directive to pay specific medical bills, as they had been excluded from evidence at the expedited hearing. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsInterlocutory AppealSyncopal EpisodeIdiopathic ConditionMotor Vehicle AccidentTruck DriverArising Out of EmploymentCourse and Scope of EmploymentEvidentiary Standard
References
6
Case No. ADJ9061807
Regular
May 26, 2016

VIRGINIA ALONZO vs. ANTELOPE VALLEY HOSPITAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Virginia Alonzo's petition for reconsideration due to untimeliness. The petition was filed on April 4, 2016, more than 25 days after the WCJ's February 25, 2016 decision. Filing deadlines for reconsideration petitions are jurisdictional, and the Board lacks authority to act on late submissions. Additionally, the petitioner's representation notice was noted as deficient.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingDismissalJurisdictional Time LimitWCAB RulesProof of FilingNotice of RepresentationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemService by MailCalifornia Labor Code
References
4
Case No. 2015-05-0652
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2016

Osborne, Jr, Alonzo v. Beacon Transport, LLC

Alonzo Osborne, Jr., an employee, sought medical and temporary disability benefits after a motor vehicle accident where he blacked out while driving for Beacon Transport, LLC. Beacon denied benefits, arguing the accident stemmed from an idiopathic condition and was not work-related. The Court, at an expedited hearing, focused on the causal link between employment and injury, rather than the idiopathic event's cause. Judge Dale Tipps ruled that Mr. Osborne was likely to prove a compensable injury, thereby granting his request for payment of emergency medical expenses. However, the claim for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient evidence at this stage.

Expedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentWorkers' Compensation ClaimsIdiopathic Condition DefenseCausation in EmploymentEmergency Medical TreatmentTrucking IndustryEmployer Liability
References
3
Case No. ADJ3872960
Regular
May 06, 2013

ALONZO WATKINS vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case concerns applicant Alonzo Watkins' petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denying his claim for unpaid benefits totaling $14,269.10. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding that Watkins failed to provide substantial evidence of non-payment, as the employer presented proof of payment via checks issued over 16 years prior. The WCAB also ruled that Watkins raised the issue of the employer's failure to produce payment records for the first time on appeal, which is impermissible. Furthermore, the WCAB clarified that the record retention requirements for adjusting agencies do not mandate indefinite maintenance of claim files.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryLower ExtremitiesTeacherCompromise and ReleasePayment RecordsProof of PaymentNon-Payment
References
2
Case No. ADJ8081723
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

BEATRIZ DELGADO vs. INDUSPAC CALIFORNIA, INC./WESTERN FOAM PACKING PRODUCTS, PINNACLE

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Applicant Beatriz Delgado. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition. The WCAB reasoned that reconsideration can only be sought for final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities, not for interlocutory procedural orders. Pre-trial orders regarding evidence, discovery, trial setting, or venue are considered interlocutory and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial OrdersEvidenceDiscoverySetting for Trial
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 36 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