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. ADJ2834079 (SDO 0293027) ADJ2839895 (SDO 0358837)
Regular
Jun 25, 2009

THUAN CRIM-ROLFE vs. LA COSTA RESORT AND SPA, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for LEGION INSURANCE COMPANY, BROADSPIRE, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision. The WCAB previously ordered Safety National Casualty Insurance Company (SNCC) to reimburse the California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA) a specific amount for bill review charges. CIGA requested clarification, noting the amount ordered was incorrect. The WCAB affirmed its earlier decision that CIGA is entitled to reimbursement for bill review costs but amended the order nunc pro tunc. The corrected order now states SNCC must reimburse CIGA for bill review charges, with the exact amount to be determined by the parties or the arbitrator.

California Insurance Guarantee AssociationLegion Insurance CompanySafety National Casualty Insurance Companynunc pro tuncclerical errorbill review chargesliquidationcovered claimsreimbursementpetition for reconsideration
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ellis v. State

Appellant pleaded guilty to drug delivery and was sentenced to ten years' incarceration. On direct appeal, appellant alleged errors in probation law information during the trial and jury charge, which were unobjected to, leading to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Austin Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. This court granted discretionary review, finding significant errors in the jury charge regarding probation conditions, specifically omissions of possible conditions and an incorrect limitation on the judge's discretion. These errors were exacerbated by conflicting testimony from the Chief Probation Officer and misleading arguments by both attorneys. Given the appellant's strong candidacy for probation, the erroneous information in the jury charge and during trial denied him a fair trial. Consequently, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.

Probation ConditionsJury Charge ErrorsIneffective Assistance of CounselDiscretionary ReviewCriminal ProcedureFair TrialSentencingDrug OffenseTexas Criminal LawAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2002

In the Interest of J.F.C.

This dissenting opinion addresses a parental-rights-termination case where the central issue is whether appellate courts can review unpreserved jury-charge errors under the common-law doctrine of fundamental error in Texas. Justice Hankinson argues for the application of fundamental error review, particularly when significant public interests, such as the "best interest of the child" as articulated in Texas statutes and caselaw, are involved. She identifies the trial court's jury charge, which omitted instructions on the children's "best interest," as erroneous. However, she disagrees with the court of appeals' finding that this error was harmful, citing overwhelming evidence presented at trial supporting termination based on the children's best interest. She also concludes that broad-form jury questions did not violate due process. Justice Hankinson dissents from the majority's opinion and judgment, criticizing its avoidance of the fundamental error review issue and its incorrect finding of harmful error, which led to the reversal and remand of the trial court's judgment.

Parental Rights TerminationDue ProcessFundamental ErrorJury Charge ErrorError PreservationAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildTexas Family LawDissenting OpinionCivil Procedure
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Esparza v. Nolan Wells Communications, Inc.

Thomas Esparza, Jr. appealed a trial court's judgment regarding his usury counterclaim against Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. The central dispute revolved around the applicability of a 'bona fide error' defense under Texas usury law, stemming from an employee's unauthorized charge of interest on Esparza's account. The appellate court clarified that intent to charge usurious interest is immaterial if such interest was, in fact, charged through a unilateral act within implied authority, and that mistakes of law do not fall under the 'accidental and bona fide error' exception. The court found that Nolan Wells Communications, Inc. had charged $93.60 in usurious interest. Consequently, the appellate court modified the trial court's judgment, awarding Esparza a forfeiture of $390.40 and $6,000.00 in attorney's fees as an offset against Nolan Wells' original claim, thus affirming the modified judgment.

Usury LawStatutory InterpretationBona Fide Error DefenseImplied AuthorityDebtor-Creditor RelationsAppellate ProcedureAttorney's FeesTexas Civil StatutesCommercial TransactionsInterest Rates
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. State

Jimmy Dee Wilson was convicted of murder and sentenced to sixty years' imprisonment for killing Butch Monday, the husband of his long-term mistress, Terri Monday. On appeal, Wilson raised several points of error, including improper statements by the State during closing arguments, failure to exclude witness testimony, sufficiency of the evidence, errors in the trial court's jury charge regarding sudden passion and apparent danger, and the admission of evidence of extraneous offenses or bad acts (telephone harassment, drug sales, treatment of Terri's children, carrying a handgun, and worker's compensation fraud). The appellate court addressed each point, finding no merit in Wilson's arguments. Specifically, it found the State's closing arguments permissible, the witness testimony properly admitted (or error harmless), and the evidence sufficient to support the conviction. The court also determined that the jury charge adequately covered apparent danger and that, while the admission of testimony regarding Wilson selling Vicodin to Terri was erroneous, it did not substantially influence the jury's verdict. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.

MurderCriminal AppealSelf-defense ArgumentSudden Passion DefenseJury Argument ProprietyWitness ExclusionEvidence Sufficiency ReviewJury Charge ErrorExtraneous OffensesRule 403
References
41
Case No. ADJ7622191 ADJ10153210 ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258)
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

CATHERINA DE LAY vs. CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for SUPERIOR NATIONAL, DIGNITY HEALTH, TRAVELERS

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision from July 19, 2019. The error resulted in the misidentification of adjudication numbers in the original decision. The Board is correcting this clerical error without granting reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The amended caption now accurately includes all relevant case numbers: ADJ7622191, ADJ10153210, ADJ3319380 (SAC 0227891)(MF), and ADJ4269417 (SAC 0286258).

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical errorOpinion and DecisionReconsiderationadjudication numbersSuperior Nationalliquidationpermissibly self-insuredCIGADignity Health
References
0
Case No. ADJ9105445
Regular
Dec 01, 2009

CHARLES STUMPH vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case concerns a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) opinion. The error involved misidentifying a defendant in the initial sentence of a paragraph. The WCAB has issued an order correcting this clerical error to accurately reflect that the applicant, Charles Stumph, entered into a compromise and release agreement with the County of Orange Sheriff's Department. This correction was made without granting further reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The Board's original decision rescinded the administrative law judge's findings and approved the compromise and release agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorReconsiderationLabor Code Section 132aFindings of Fact and OrderCompromise and ReleaseWCJWCAB Rule 10882Labor Code Section 5001Labor Code Section 5002
References
2
Case No. ADJ1312021
Regular
Nov 01, 2013

GRICELDA AREVALOS vs. PERSONNEL PLUS, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order corrects clerical errors in a prior decision regarding Gricelda Arevalos's case. The errors involved an incorrect case number in the caption and an extra space within the case number later in the document. The Board is correcting these errors to reflect the accurate case number ADJ1312021 without further proceedings. This amendment ensures the official record is accurate.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCLERICAL ERRORSORDER CORRECTINGPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCASE NUMBER CORRECTIONADJ7430358ADJ0302021ADJ1312021SUPPLEMENTAL PROCEEDINGSCONTINGENT PROCEEDINGS
References
0
Case No. ADJ3940252
Regular
Feb 26, 2009

MARTHA MARIN vs. AVEC SERVALL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed a judge's decision regarding a lien claimant's surgical center fees, but corrected a clerical error to increase the reasonable facility fee to $5,563.29. The WCAB also removed the case to itself on its own motion to consider sanctions against the lien claimant, its representative, and their hearing representative for potentially filing a petition without substantial evidence. The lien claimant had sought payment of $42,017.00, arguing the defendant bore the burden of proving their charges were unreasonable.

WCABS&B Surgery CenterCMS NetworkInc.Dominic D. Arguelloreconsiderationlien balancereasonableness of chargesevidentiary burdenLabor Code Section 3202.5
References
0
Case No. ADJ3283274 (VNO 0386537) ADJ4545965 (VNO 0386536) ADJ3421140 (VNO 0347301)
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

BARBARA STRAUSS vs. WEST MARINE, INC., CIGA for RELIANCE in liquidation, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY, FIREMAN'S FUND

This case involves a clerical error in the caption of a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order denying reconsideration. The error involved the incorrect assignment of ADJ and VNO numbers to the relevant case numbers. The WCAB is correcting this error to accurately reflect the case numbers as ADJ3283274 and VNO 0386537. This correction ensures proper record-keeping for applicant Barbara Strauss and defendants West Marine, Inc., et al.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardOrder Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeClerical ErrorCorrected Case NumberADJ NumberVNO NumberReversal of NumbersLiquidation
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,737 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