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. 06-11-00094-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2012

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Christopher Castleberry appealed the dismissal of his case against New Hampshire Insurance Company. Castleberry sustained a work-related back injury in 2009, for which he received worker's compensation benefits. The insurer later contested coverage for medications for depression, chronic pain syndrome, chronic myofascial pain, and erectile dysfunction. The Division of Workers’ Compensation Review Board ruled that the compensable injury did not extend to these ailments. Castleberry sought judicial review, but the trial court granted the insurer's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the entire suit. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims for depression, chronic pain syndrome, or myofascial pain syndrome, but reversed the judgment concerning the claim for medication for erectile dysfunction, remanding that issue for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewPlea to JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesMedical BenefitsErectile DysfunctionChronic PainDepressionMyofascial PainAppellate Court
References
3
Case No. ADJ1088522 (RIV 0015524)
Regular
Jan 03, 2013

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

This case involved an applicant who claimed industrial injury to her neck, back, left shoulder, psyche, and associated chronic pain syndrome, resulting in a finding of permanent total disability. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the medical evidence did not support injury to the low back or a diagnosis of chronic pain syndrome. The Appeals Board reversed the findings on the low back and chronic pain syndrome, finding no substantial evidence to support them. Consequently, the applicant's permanent disability award was amended to 70%, based on ratings for her neck, left shoulder, and psyche.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent Total DisabilityChronic Pain SyndromeAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical Record ReviewIndustrial InjuryPermanent Disability Indemnity
References
0
Case No. ADJ605947 (MON 0274664)
Regular
Feb 02, 2009

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case concerns a workers' compensation claim for injuries to the applicant's hands, upper extremities, and neck, resulting in chronic pain syndrome and a sleep disorder. The defendant disputed the extent of permanent disability and the diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome and sleep disorder. The Appeals Board affirmed the finding of industrial injury and the 85% permanent disability rating, including the diagnoses of chronic pain syndrome and sleep disorder. The Board also granted reconsideration to amend the award to include a life pension for the applicant, as required by law for an 85% permanent disability finding.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLeslie CellucciFlorence Machine ProductsState Compensation Insurance FundADJ605947Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPermanent DisabilityChronic Pain SyndromeSleep Disorder
References
0
Case No. No. M2018-01696-COA-R3-CV; No. 15-4-IV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2020

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves an appeal concerning a failed merger between two professional dental associations, American Board of Craniofacial Pain (ABCP) and American Board of Orofacial Pain (ABOP). ABCP sued ABOP, alleging a breach of an agreement to merge formed through email exchanges and seeking specific performance and damages. The Chancery Court for Davidson County granted summary judgment to ABOP, finding no meeting of the minds and thus no enforceable contract. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed this decision, concluding that the parties’ objective manifestations showed a lack of mutual assent because an essential term (disposition of intellectual property) was not agreed upon and they intended to reduce the agreement to a formal Memorandum of Understanding, which was never finalized. The court also agreed that specific performance was not an available remedy due to the incompleteness of the purported contract.

Contract DisputeMerger NegotiationsCorporate MergerDental ProfessionMutual AssentSpecific Performance DenialSummary Judgment AffirmationTennessee Court of AppealsContract FormationLack of Agreement
References
26
Case No. 07-12-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2013

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Wendell H. Taylor, an employee of Lubbock Regional MHMR, sustained a compensable injury in 2009. His subsequent claim for chronic pain and related conditions was denied by the Workers' Compensation Division's appeals panel. Taylor filed suit in district court seeking judicial review and alleging intentional torts, bad faith, and other claims against MHMR, JI Specialty Services, Texas Council Risk Management Fund, and the Division. The trial court dismissed most of Taylor's claims against all defendants based on a lack of jurisdiction and governmental immunity. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissals for MHMR, the Risk Management Fund, and the Division, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and sovereign/governmental immunity for tort claims. However, the court reversed the dismissal against JI Specialty Services, Inc., concluding it had not established its claim to governmental immunity. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding JI Specialty Services.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTort ClaimsAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionSelf-insured EntityThird-Party Administrator LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTexas Appeals Court
References
28
Case No. 07-12-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2013

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Wendell H. Taylor appealed the trial court's dismissal of portions of his suit against Lubbock Regional MHMR, JI Specialty Services, Inc., Texas Council Risk Management Fund, and Texas Department of Insurance-Workers' Compensation Division. Taylor sustained a compensable injury while employed by MHMR and sought to extend his injury claim to include chronic pain and other conditions, which the appeals panel denied. He subsequently sued in district court, alleging intentional tortious acts, altering medical records, and bad faith treatment, alongside seeking judicial review and lifetime healthcare benefits. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Taylor's claims against MHMR, the Risk Management Fund, and the Workers' Compensation Division due to a lack of jurisdiction and governmental immunity for tort claims. However, it reversed the dismissal against JI Specialty Services, Inc., finding its claim of governmental immunity was not supported by the record and remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGovernmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesIntentional TortsAppeals Panel DecisionSelf-insured EntityThird-party AdministratorRisk Management Fund
References
26
Case No. 2022-08-1051
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2023

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Ms. Barbara Foulks suffered a compensable injury and was initially treated by Dr. John Lochemes, who deemed her at maximum medical improvement. She subsequently received treatment from Dr. Michael Cody Scarbrough for chronic pain and complex regional pain syndrome symptoms. The employer argued Ms. Foulks was conclusively at maximum medical improvement, as her treatment was for pain only. However, the Court found Dr. Scarbrough's treatment to be active, involving physical therapy and other interventions aimed at functional improvement, not solely pain management. Consequently, the Court ruled that Ms. Foulks was not at maximum medical improvement under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-207(1)(E) and reinstated her temporary total disability benefits, applying an overpayment credit.

Temporary Total DisabilityMaximum Medical ImprovementComplex Regional Pain SyndromePain ManagementActive Medical TreatmentFunctional ImprovementPhysical TherapyNerve BlockGait InstabilityOverpayment Credit
References
3
Case No. 13-03-427-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2006

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case involves an appeal by Columbia Rio Grande Regional Healthcare, L.P., d/b/a Rio Grande Regional Hospital, from a jury verdict in favor of Alice H. Hawley and James A. Hawley. The Hawleys sued the Hospital for negligence in failing to timely communicate Alice H. Hawley's colon cancer diagnosis, which led to a significant delay in treatment and the cancer becoming inoperable. The central issue revolved around the sufficiency of evidence regarding causation, specifically whether Mrs. Hawley had a greater than 50% chance of survival at the time of the Hospital's alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling all of the Hospital's ten issues on appeal, which included challenges to evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and damages.

Medical MalpracticeHospital NegligenceCancer MisdiagnosisColon CancerLoss of Chance DoctrineProximate CauseExpert Testimony AdmissibilitySufficiency of Medical EvidenceJury Charge ErrorDamage Caps
References
63
Case No. 06-11-00094-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2012

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Christopher Castleberry appealed the dismissal of his case against New Hampshire Insurance Company, concerning a dispute over workers' compensation benefits for prescribed medications. Castleberry suffered a work-related back injury in 2009. The insurer later contested medications for depression, chronic pain syndrome, chronic myofascial pain, and erectile dysfunction. The Division of Workers' Compensation Review Board ruled against Castleberry regarding these ailments. The trial court subsequently granted the insurer's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the entire suit. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims related to depression, chronic pain, and myofascial pain due to a lack of exhausted administrative remedies. However, it reversed and remanded the claim for erectile dysfunction medication, finding that the trial court improperly dismissed this issue, for which jurisdiction existed.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionAdministrative ReviewMedical BenefitsErectile DysfunctionChronic PainDepressionRemandAppellate Procedure
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Rhonda P. Ley, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, filed a petition against the Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A (Union) seeking a preliminary injunction. Ley alleged that Article XXII of the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Xerox Corporation (Employer) constituted an unlawful 'union signatory' agreement under Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, Ley claimed that the Union's continued attempts to enforce Article XXII violated Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act. The Union argued that Article XXII was a lawful work preservation provision. The Court found reasonable cause to believe the Union was violating the Act and that a preliminary injunction was just and proper to prevent further statutory violations and maintain public interest. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining the Union from enforcing Article XXII.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations ActUnion Signatory AgreementWork PreservationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingArbitrationDistrict Court
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,857 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