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. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

GUADALUPE MEDINA vs. CLOUGHERTY PACKING dba FARMERS JOHN

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. 03-10-00160-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation Frank S. Denton v. Reema Khan, D/B/A Salon Rupa - Shapes Brow Bar

This appeal concerns district court orders that partially denied a plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The appellants, governmental defendants including the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its executive director and members, faced claims from appellee Reema Khan, who operates eyebrow threading businesses. Khan was penalized for practicing cosmetology without a license and challenged this, arguing eyebrow threading is not within the statutory scope of cosmetology. The appellate court reversed the district court's denial of the plea to the jurisdiction for Khan's declaratory claims, dismissing them as redundant to her Administrative Procedures Act (APA) judicial review claim. However, the court affirmed the temporary injunction, finding no abuse of discretion given Khan's viable APA claim and probable right to recovery against the Department's regulation of eyebrow threading.

Cosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgments ActPlea to JurisdictionTemporary InjunctionStatutory InterpretationProfessional LicensingGovernmental AuthorityUltra Vires Act
References
24
Case No. 03-11-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2012

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi// Cross Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation William H. Kuntz, Jr., in His Official Capacity// Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Tahereh Rokhti, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi

This case involves cross-appeals concerning the constitutionality of cosmetology statutes and administrative rules as they apply to eyebrow threading in Texas. The appellants, who operate eyebrow threading businesses, argued that these regulations infringe upon their constitutional right to economic liberty under article I, section 19 of the Texas Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and its officials, denying the appellants' motion. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the challenged regulations are sufficiently rational and reasonable to meet constitutional due course requirements, falling within the state's police power for public health and safety concerns related to cosmetology services.

Eyebrow ThreadingCosmetology RegulationEconomic LibertyDue ProcessRational Basis ReviewPolice PowerSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionState AgenciesOccupational Licensing
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCollum v. Texas Department of Licensing & Regulation

Carolyn McCollum sued the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (Department) after being terminated from the Texas Cosmetology Commission (Commission), alleging race, age, disability discrimination, and retaliation, as well as a hostile work environment. She initially filed complaints with the EEOC and TWC. The trial court granted the Department's plea to the jurisdiction, asserting McCollum's federal claims were barred by sovereign immunity and state claims were untimely due to delayed filing and service. On appeal, McCollum abandoned her federal claims, focusing on her state law claims under the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court ruled that the 60-day period for filing and serving suit under Texas Labor Code § 21.254 is not a jurisdictional requirement, distinguishing it from other mandatory jurisdictional provisions. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, allowing McCollum's state claims to proceed.

Employment discriminationRetaliationHostile work environmentSovereign immunityPlea to the jurisdictionTexas Labor CodeTimely filingTimely serviceJurisdictional requirementsAppellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. ADJ1888124 (SAL 0111884) ADJ3322590 (SAL 0079903)
Regular
Oct 20, 2016

MARIA NUNEZ vs. MANN PACKING COMPANY, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, In Liquidation; STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns the California Insurance Guarantee Association's (CIGA) liability for an applicant's workers' compensation claims after Fremont Compensation Insurance Company became insolvent. CIGA argued it should be relieved of liability because the State of California, as the applicant's employer through IHSS, constituted "other insurance" under Insurance Code Section 1063.1. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, holding that the State of California does not qualify as "other insurance" under the relevant statutes. This distinction is based on the State not being required to obtain workers' compensation insurance or a certificate of self-insurance like private or other public employers.

CIGAFremont Compensation Insurance Companyliquidationlegally uninsuredother insuranceInsurance Code Section 1063.1covered claimsIn-Home Supportive Services (IHSS)statutory limitationsself-insurance
References
5
Case No. ADJ10351910
Regular
Aug 09, 2017

SELENA MCINTOSH vs. MILITARY DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, legally uninsured, adjusted by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns whether a California Army National Guard member injured during "active duty for training" under federal Title 10 is eligible for California workers' compensation benefits. The Board found that California Military and Veterans Code Section 340(b) expressly prohibits state workers' compensation benefits for service performed under Title 10. Therefore, the applicant cannot collect benefits under Division 4 of the Labor Code. While the applicant's VA benefits were denied, her recourse was to appeal that denial, not to pursue state workers' compensation.

Military Departmentlegally uninsuredState Compensation Insurance FundTitle 10Labor Code Division 4Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactWCJpsyche injurysexual assault
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Monarch Consulting, Inc v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA

This case addresses whether disputes concerning workers' compensation insurance Payment Agreements should be submitted to arbitration. The central question is if the McCarran-Ferguson Act prevents the application of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in connection with California Insurance Code § 11658, which mandates the filing of insurance documents. The Court determined that the McCarran-Ferguson Act is not activated because the FAA's application would not 'invalidate, impair, or supersede' California Insurance Code § 11658, given that California law at the time did not regulate arbitration clauses in insurance contracts. Consequently, the FAA governs the Payment Agreements. Furthermore, under FAA principles of severability, the enforceability of the Payment Agreements and their arbitration clauses, including questions of arbitrability, must be resolved through arbitration.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)McCarran-Ferguson ActInsurance LawWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCalifornia Insurance Code § 11658Reverse PreemptionContract LawArbitrabilityDelegation Clauses
References
43
Case No. MISC. 251
En Banc
Jul 08, 2008

Ramon B. Pellicer vs. State Bar of California

The Appeals Board denied Ramon B. Pellicer's petition to appear as a non-attorney hearing representative due to his prior disciplinary record with the State Bar, affirming that disbarred attorneys are precluded from practicing law in any capacity before the WCAB.

WCABPetition to PracticeHearing RepresentativeInvoluntary Inactive EnrollmentState Bar ActRules of Professional ConductDefaultDisciplinary ChargesPractice of LawDefrocked Attorney
References
2
Case No. ADJ9196082 (MF) ADJ10238220
Regular
Oct 02, 2019

JOHN FORKNER vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

This case involves a request for additional attorney's fees under Labor Code § 5801 following an unsuccessful writ of review by Southern California Edison. The Appeals Board found the applicant's attorney's requested rate of $450/hour reasonable. Despite the sole appellate issue being the substantiality of a medical opinion, the Board deemed the case of above-average complexity due to extensive briefing and exhibits filed by both parties. Therefore, the Board awarded $18,000.00 in appellate attorney's fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSouthern California EdisonPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801attorney's feesappellate attorney's feesAgreed Medical EvaluatorAMEabove average complexityfactual issues
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,080 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