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. ADJ11900759
Regular
Oct 20, 2025

Luis Hernandez vs. Cesar Chavez Foundation, Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Insurance Company's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged an earlier decision that found a contested claim existed when cost petitioner DocCentral provided subpoena services. The Board affirmed its previous finding, clarifying that a claim becomes contested upon an employer's delay notice, thus allowing discovery. The Board rejected the defendant's argument that a denial was required for a contested claim, citing prior en banc decisions to support its position on discovery during delay periods.

Contested claimLabor Code § 4620(b)8 CCR § 9793(b)Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order DenyingDocCentralsubpoena servicesdelay noticemedical-legal expenseAdjudication of Claim
References
6
Case No. 01-00-00586-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company

This case involves indemnity and insurance claims arising from oilfield litigation. Appellants, Ranger Insurance Company and Swift Energy Company, appealed a summary judgment granted to appellees, American International Specialty Lines Insurance Company, Flournoy Production Company, and Flournoy Drilling Company. The trial court had ruled that mutual indemnity provisions in an oil and gas drilling contract were void under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the judgment, holding that the contract was enforceable up to the extent of mutual coverage and dollar limits, and that its indemnity provisions were conspicuous.

Oilfield LitigationIndemnityInsurance ClaimsTexas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationMutual Indemnity ObligationConspicuousnessAppellate ReviewWell Blowout
References
18
Case No. ADJ14218571
Regular
Oct 10, 2025

CARLOS ARTURO HERNANDEZ vs. JACOBELLISSAUSAGE COMPANY, INC.; OAK RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY dba BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the cost petitioner's Petition for Reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's Findings and Order, but amended it to require defendants Jacobellis Sausage Company, Inc. and Oak River Insurance Company to pay interest and penalties on medical-legal charges until the full amount is paid. The original F&O by WCJ Woo ordered payment with interest and penalties only up to May 30, 2024, which the Board deemed erroneous, as a contested claim was found to exist at the time of the medical-legal evaluation despite the claim's acceptance.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCost PetitionerArbi Mirzaians D.C.PenaltiesInterestMedical-Legal ExpensesContested ClaimLabor Code
References
20
Case No. ADJ7753735
Regular
Oct 23, 2015

JOSE VALENCIA vs. AL'S GARDEN ART, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, US RISK MANAGEMENT CLAIMS-XL INSURANCE

This case involves Cypress Insurance Company's (BHHC) petition for contribution against Argonaut Insurance Company regarding applicant Jose Valencia's cumulative injury claim. The arbitrator initially denied BHHC's petition, finding insufficient evidence of cumulative injury AOE/COE. BHHC sought reconsideration, arguing issues regarding Argonaut's defense and the sufficiency of medical evidence. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the findings to include previously omitted BHHC exhibits, but otherwise affirmed the arbitrator's decision. The Board adopted the arbitrator's report which noted issues with the PQME reports and gaps in medical documentation, ultimately upholding the denial of contribution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for ContributionCumulative InjuryAOE/COELabor Code 3208.1Labor Code 5500.5Labor Code 5412Qualified Medical ExaminerPQME
References
0
Case No. 3-94-122-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 1995

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility v. State Board of Insurance, Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, Houston General Insurance Company, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, United States Fire Insurance Company

The Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Facility (Facility) appealed a district court judgment that affirmed an order by the State Board of Insurance. The Board had ordered the Facility to indemnify several servicing companies for legal expenses incurred in litigation brought by Standard Financial Indemnity Company (SFIC). The Facility argued that Article 5.76-2, section 2.05(i) of the Texas Insurance Code, which states the Facility 'may not indemnify the servicing companies,' terminated the servicing companies' right to indemnification. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the servicing companies had a vested contractual right to indemnification which arose when they entered into servicing company agreements, and that section 2.05(i) could not be applied retroactively to impair these vested rights. The court found that the law existing at the time the contracts were made, which included the Facility's bylaws allowing for indemnification, was incorporated into the agreements.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawContractual RightsVested RightsRetroactive Application of LawIndemnificationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Insurance Code
References
32
Case No. ADJ16007451
Regular
Aug 25, 2025

MINA RADJABI vs. CENTURY COMMUNITIES, INC./INSPIRE HOME LOAN; BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANY dba BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The applicant, Mina Radjabi, alleged a cumulative trauma injury to multiple body parts from July 2019 to February 2022 while employed by Century Communities, Inc./Inspire Home Loan. The case initially settled by Compromise and Release in March 2023, with the defendant maintaining a denial of injury AOE/COE. A lien claimant, Woodland Psyche Center, represented by PureMD Group Lomita, filed a petition for reconsideration after its lien for treatment was denied by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ denied the lien because Woodland Psyche Center failed to prove injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) and its medical reports did not comply with regulatory requirements for proving a contested claim. The Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition and the WCJ's report, adopted the WCJ's findings and denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the lien claimant did not establish causation or due process violations, and that the treatment provided was outside the employer's Medical Provider Network.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909TimelinessTransmission Date60-Day RuleNotice of TransmissionElectronic Adjudication Management System (EAMS)Report and RecommendationLien Claimant
References
10
Case No. 03-00-00427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

All American Life Insurance Company American General Life Insurance Company American National Insurance Company American National Life Insurance Company of Texas IDS Life Insurance Company And USLIFE Life Insurance Company v. Carole Keeton Rylander, Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas And John Cornyn, Attorney General of Texas

Several insurance companies appealed a district court judgment affirming the Comptroller's assessment of premium and maintenance taxes on 'internal rollover' transactions, where policyholders transfer accumulation values within the same company for new policies. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, At Austin, reviewed the construction of Texas Insurance Code articles 4.11 and 4.17 de novo. The court determined that 'internal rollovers' do not involve funds being 'received' or 'collected' by the insurance companies, as the funds remain within the company. Therefore, these transactions are not subject to the premium and maintenance taxes. The judgment of the district court was reversed in part, and the case was remanded for a determination of the refund amounts owed to the companies.

Insurance LawTax LawPremium TaxInternal RolloversStatutory ConstructionTexas Court of AppealsInsurance CompaniesComptrollerGross PremiumsTax Refund
References
9
Case No. ADJ4718986 (POM 0280167) ADJ2367642 (POM 0280166)
Regular
May 17, 2011

SEVERIANO GUZMAN vs. HANSON TRUSS, INC., ALLIANZ GLOBAL RISKS U.S. INSURANCE COMPANY, CENTRE INSURANCE COMPANY, VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC., LUMBERMAN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES For REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision which denied Allianz Global Risks U.S. Insurance Company's petition for contribution and set the date of injury as January 21, 1997. The Board found the arbitrator failed to comply with procedural rules regarding record keeping and evidence admission. Therefore, the case was returned to the arbitrator for further proceedings to create a proper record and reanalyze the issues consistent with relevant case law. The reanalysis must specifically consider whether compensable disability existed prior to the employee missing work, per *Rodarte*.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationArbitrator's DecisionPetition for ContributionDate of InjuryLabor Code Section 5412Cumulative InjuryLiability PeriodLabor Code Section 5500.5Admitted Evidence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hunter v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including Chief Financial Officer Judy Hunter and other current or retired employees of Acme Building Brands, Inc. (Acme), sued Acme and its parent company, Berkshire, Hathaway, Inc. (Berkshire). They alleged that Berkshire coerced Acme into reducing 401(k) matching contributions and implementing a pension plan freeze, which they claimed violated Section 5.7 of a merger agreement and constituted breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that the merger agreement did not clearly grant unalterable lifetime benefits and that Acme acted as a plan settlor, not a fiduciary. The Court, citing legal precedents, determined that the agreement's language was ambiguous regarding benefit duration and that Acme did not act in a fiduciary capacity when amending the plans. Additionally, the Court found the plaintiffs' alternative breach-of-contract claim to be preempted by ERISA. Consequently, the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was granted, and all Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

ERISAMotion to DismissEmployee BenefitsPension Plan401k PlanMerger AgreementFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractPlan AmendmentVesting Benefits
References
25
Case No. 04-25-00040-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company v. Javier A. Libson, Nosbil, Inc., Jose Luis Ramirez, Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company

Appellants Enrique Cantu and Bridgefield Casualty Insurance Company appealed a no-evidence summary judgment. Cantu's claims of negligence per se, negligent hiring, training, retention, and negligent entrustment were affirmed. However, the summary judgment for Cantu's ordinary negligence claims was reversed and remanded. Additionally, the judgment favoring the insurance defendants (Utica National Insurance Group, Utica National Insurance Company of Texas, Utica Mutual Insurance Company, and Republic Franklin Insurance Company) was also reversed, as their motion for summary judgment was not properly heard. The case involved a collision between Cantu and Jose Luis Ramirez, an employee of Nosbil, Inc., in foggy conditions, leading to Cantu suing for negligence and insurance claims.

NegligenceAutomobile AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseDuty of CareBreach of DutyCausationInsurance ClaimsVicarious Liability
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 11,416 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