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. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. ADJ3140199 (RIV 0068905) ADJ966589 (RIV 0068906) ADJ3180444 (RIV 0068982)
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

JOSE L. JARA vs. IMPERIAL WESTERN PRODUCTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Jose L. Jara's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB found the petition was untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Findings and Award was issued on October 18, 2013. This timeframe violates Labor Code section 5903 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 regarding timely reconsideration filings. Consequently, the WCAB has ordered the dismissal of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyDismissalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardFindings and AwardLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Administrative Law JudgeRecord ReviewOrder
References
0
Case No. ADJ1807866 (VNO 0555240)
Regular
Nov 06, 2013

ELVIRA ANAYA vs. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, TRISTAR

This case involves Elvira Anaya's workers' compensation claims against Grimmway Enterprises. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by an applicant/defendant/lien claimant. The dismissal is due to the petition being filed untimely, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Order Amending Finding of Fact issued on July 5, 2013. This failure to meet the statutory filing deadline under Labor Code section 5903 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013 mandates the dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationuntimelydismissalWCABLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013Order Amending Finding of Factadministrative law judgeGrimmway EnterprisesTristar
References
0
Case No. ADJ7397383
Regular
Dec 07, 2012

JOSE GARCIA vs. PRODUCTION PLUS PLUMBING, INC., MATRIX INSURANCE

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by applicant Jose Garcia concerning a workers' compensation claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely because it was not filed within the 25-day statutory period. This deadline included the 20 days allowed by Labor Code section 5903 plus 5 additional days for mailing per Code of Civil Procedure section 1013. Consequently, the Board adopted the administrative law judge's recommendation and dismissed the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013Dismissal OrderApplicantDefendant
References
0
Case No. ADJ9287010
Regular
Oct 22, 2015

Esther Rodriguez vs. MANUEL VILLA ENTERPRISE, NORGUARD INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, reversing a previous order that deemed her strike from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel untimely. The Board found that the applicant's strike was timely under Labor Code section 4062.2(c) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a), which extends the 10-day striking period by five days when the panel assignment is mailed. Consequently, Dr. James Shaw was designated as the proper QME, and the WCJ's prior order was rescinded.

Petition for RemovalQME paneluntimely strikesubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmLabor Code section 4062.2(c)Senate Bill 863Messele v. Pitco FoodsInc.Agreed Medical Evaluator
References
7
Case No. ADJ8835727
Regular
Oct 05, 2015

ELVIRA MAYA vs. WENTE VINEYARDS, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the timeliness of a defendant's strike of a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The Appeals Board determined that the ten-day period to strike a QME from a panel, as per Labor Code section 4062.2(c), is extended by five days when service is by U.S. mail, consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a). Consequently, the defendant's strike of Dr. Boyd was deemed timely, and the applicant must now be examined by the remaining panel member, Dr. Gardner. The prior WCJ decision finding the strike untimely was rescinded.

WCABReconsiderationRemovalPetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationPQMEPanel QMELabor Code section 4062.2(c)Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a)WCAB Rule 10507(a)(1)
References
3
Case No. ADJ8381652
Regular
Feb 07, 2014

CARLOS CABRERA RAZO vs. LAS POSAS COUNTRY CLUB, HARTFORD INSURANCE CO.

This case concerns the timeliness of an applicant's strike from a Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel. The Appeals Board vacated its previous grant of reconsideration, dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, and denied their Petition for Removal. The Board determined that Labor Code section 4062.2, as amended by SB 863 effective January 1, 2013, applies to pending matters, including this case with a 2012 date of injury. Applying the amended statute and Code of Civil Procedure section 1013(a), the applicant had 15 days from the Administrative Director's assignment of the QME panel to strike a name. The applicant's strike on the 12th day was therefore timely, affirming the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardQualified Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 4062.2(c)Senate Bill 863Administrative DirectorCumulative Trauma InjuryQME Panel AssignmentCode of Civil Procedure 1013
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. ADJ11350389
Regular
Sep 23, 2025

JOSE PEREZ LEDESMA, Marjorie Martinez Interpreting vs. RUIZ & SON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that ruled a notice to produce was an invalid discovery mechanism. The WCAB found that California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 10642 expressly permits the use of notices to produce in workers' compensation proceedings, similar to Civil Code of Civil Procedure section 1987(b). Therefore, the defendant was ordered to produce the relevant interpreter payment and Explanation of Review documents requested by the cost petitioner. This decision emphasizes the system's intent for a simple and nontechnical path to relief, allowing authorized discovery methods.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationNotice to ProduceSubpoenaWCJRemovalLabor CodeCode of Civil ProcedureRule 10642Explanation of Review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 11,085 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