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. M2009-00813-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2010

Joseph Edward Rich, M.D. v. Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners

This is an administrative appeal concerning the suspension of Dr. Joseph Edward Rich's medical license by the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners. The Board found Dr. Rich in violation of several provisions related to his use of chelation therapy, intravenous hydrogen peroxide therapy, and methadone. The chancery court affirmed the Board's decision. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the findings for Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(1), (4), and (12) due to the Board's failure to articulate the standard of care. However, the court affirmed violations of Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-6-214(b)(14), Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0880-2-.14(6)(c), Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs. 0880-2-.14(6)(e)(3)(ii), and 21 U.S.C.A § 823(g)(1). The case was remanded for the Board to reconsider the sanctions.

Medical License SuspensionChelation TherapyMethadone TreatmentAdministrative LawStandard of CareDue ProcessEvidence ExclusionPhysician MisconductControlled SubstancesBoard of Medical Examiners
References
18
Case No. ADJ7535016, ADJ7536297, ADJ8099855
Regular
Sep 05, 2013

DAVID MURILLO-RAMOS vs. NATIONAL RETAIL TRANSPORTATION, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal is based on two procedural defects: the petition was not verified as required by Labor Code section 5902, and there was no proof of proper service under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10565(d). The Board cites prior case law supporting dismissal for these types of violations. Consequently, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by David Murillo-Ramos against National Retail Transportation and Travelers Insurance is formally rejected.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissalVerificationLabor Code section 5902Proof of ServiceCal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10565(d)WCJ ReportWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
2
Case No. 14-10-00756-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2011

Otis Lee Harris, Sr. v. Rocking 8 Transportation., Inc.

Otis Lee Harris, Sr. appealed the granting of a motion for summary judgment in favor of Rocking 8 Transportation, Inc. Harris alleged breach of contract, claiming Rocking 8 failed to provide a promised lumbar support, leading to a debilitating back injury. Rocking 8 asserted an affirmative defense, claiming it was a subscriber to the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and therefore protected by its exclusive remedy provision. The appellate court found that Rocking 8 failed to meet its summary judgment burden by not conclusively proving it had workers' compensation insurance at the time Harris's alleged injury occurred. Specifically, the insurance policy provided by Rocking 8 expired before the end of Harris's employment, and the pleadings did not unequivocally establish the injury date within the coverage period. Therefore, the trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractAffirmative DefenseExclusive RemedyTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeInsurance CoverageEmployment Law
References
17
Case No. 10-10-00440-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2011

in the Interest of L.D.E. and C.E., Children

This case involves Robert's appeal against an order terminating his parental rights to his children, L.D.E. and C.E. The Texas Department of Family and Protective Services initiated the termination suit due to allegations of domestic violence and drug/alcohol abuse by Robert and the children's mother, Lucy. The children were removed from their parents' care multiple times after failed monitored returns, which were disrupted by further incidents of family violence witnessed by the children. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that it had proper jurisdiction and that there was legally and factually sufficient evidence to support the finding that termination was in the best interest of the children, citing factors such as domestic violence, substance abuse, Robert's criminal history and parole violations, and the detrimental impact on the children's development.

Domestic ViolenceChild WelfareParental Rights TerminationBest Interest of ChildSufficiency of EvidenceJurisdictionFamily LawTexasChild NeglectSubstance Abuse
References
20
Case No. ADJ7103630
Regular
May 21, 2012

DENISE SANCHES vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

This case involves Denise Sanches' workers' compensation claim against the County of Sacramento. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Sanches' Petition for Removal as untimely. The dismissal was based on the petition being filed on March 8, 2012, which was more than the allowed 25 days after the February 13, 2012, decision. This delay violated the time limits prescribed by 8 Cal. Code Regs. § 10843 and Code of Civil Procedure § 1013.

Petition for RemovalUntimelyDecision DateFiling Date25 Days20 Days8 Cal. Code Regs. 10843Code of Civil Procedure § 1013Served by MailDismissed
References
0
Case No. ADJ4539662 (LBO 0266945)
Regular
Feb 07, 2011

RAUL ANAYA vs. MCDONNELL DOUGLAS; CIGA c/o CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES for FREMONT INDEMNITY in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a venue change order. However, treating the petition as a request for removal, the WCAB granted removal and rescinded the order. The WCAB found that the defendant improperly sought a venue change to consolidate cases, as consolidation requires following specific procedures outlined in Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10260(b).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5(c)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10410Adjudication Case NumberPWCJStipulated AwardContribution Proceeding
References
14
Case No. ADJ7048367
Regular
May 24, 2016

BLANCA CANTU vs. NATIONAL STEEL & SHIPBUILDING COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Disqualification against the defendant, National Steel & Shipbuilding Company. This dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, as it was not submitted until February 24, 2016, after multiple continuances of the trial date since March 2015. The Board adopted the WCJ's report and recommendations, which found the petition untimely under Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 10452. Even if the petition had not been untimely, the Board indicated it would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJtimelinessuntimelinessMandatory Settlement Conferencecontinuancesupplemental petitionCal. Code Regs.tit. 8§ 10848
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2000

Vallance v. Irving C.A.R.E.S., Inc.

Anne Marie Vallanee appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in favor of Irving C.A.R.E.S., Inc., in her lawsuit alleging wrongful termination for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Vallanee, an intake receptionist, suffered two back injuries and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, leading to her termination due to chronic absenteeism. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, finding no evidence that her termination was causally linked to filing the claim, as required by Texas Labor Code § 451.001. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that while the employer knew of the claim and terminated her for absenteeism, Vallanee failed to provide sufficient evidence that 'but for' the claim, she would not have been discharged.

Workers' Compensation ClaimWrongful TerminationSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeEmployment DiscriminationCausal ConnectionChronic AbsenteeismAppellate ReviewLabor LawTexas Court of Appeals
References
13
Case No. ADJ9170309
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

Miguel Mosqueda vs. City of Clearlake

Applicant Miguel Mosqueda sought reconsideration of a July 25, 2025 decision which found his injuries were not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct or violation of safety orders. Mosqueda, a maintenance worker, suffered catastrophic injuries, including paraplegia, after falling from a ladder while trimming a tree for the City of Clearlake. He contended that the employer violated several Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8 sections related to safety, training, and equipment. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition for reconsideration, concluding that the employer's actions did not constitute serious and willful misconduct and that no alleged safety violation was the proximate cause of the accident.

Serious and willful misconductPetition for reconsiderationFindings and OrderViolation of statuteViolation of safety orderCal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3203Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(d)(1)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3276(e)(15)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(b)Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 3421(d)
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris County Wrecker Owners for Equal Opportunity v. City of Houston

Plaintiffs, Harris County Wrecker Owners for Equal Opportunity (HCW) and Houston Private Wrecker Association (HPWA), challenged parts of the City of Houston's wrecker ordinance, arguing federal preemption under the FAAA Act and ICC Termination Act. The court ruled that federal law preempts state and local regulations on tow truck prices, routes, or services, except for legitimate safety regulations and non-consensual towing prices. It found Houston's E-Tag provisions (Code of Ordinances §§ 8-135 through 8-142) to be impermissible economic regulations and enjoined their enforcement. However, the court upheld the city's geographical service area restrictions (Code of Ordinances § 8-102 and related portions of § 8-115(c) & (d)) as valid safety regulations. The City of Houston was enjoined from enforcing the preempted E-Tag provisions.

Federal PreemptionTowing RegulationsInterstate Commerce ActFAAA Act of 1994ICC Termination Act of 1995Houston Wrecker OrdinanceEmergency Wrecker Permits (E-Tags)Non-consensual TowingEconomic RegulationSafety Regulation
References
58
Showing 1-10 of 8,553 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