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. BGN 63300; BGN 63301 BGN 63302; BGN 63303
Regular
Mar 06, 2008

HARDISTENE HOWARD vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, RTD; TRAVELERS

The applicant filed a "Petition the Court for Judge Dismissal" alleging a violation of Labor Code section 5312 by the Workers' Compensation Judge. The Board treated this as a petition for disqualification, but dismissed it because it lacked the required affidavit of disqualification and did not state grounds for disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure section 641.

Petition for disqualificationLabor Code section 5311Petition for removalLabor Code section 5310WCAB Rule 10452Mandatory settlement conferenceWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardUnrepresented applicantProof of service
References
0
Case No. ADJ18267667
Regular
Apr 14, 2025

ANA ORDAZ DE AMAYA vs. INTERSTATE MEAT CO., INC., COMPWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Disqualification against WCJ Tammy Homen, upholding her report. The Board found the petition lacked specific factual allegations required by Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. It emphasized that a WCJ's opinions or rulings, made in official duties and based on evidence, do not establish bias for disqualification. The WCJ's report indicated the petitioner's attorney, Albert Andrew Navarra, objected to an in-person appearance rather than demonstrating grounds for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Rule 10960WCJbiasenmityunqualified opinionaffidavitdeclaration under penalty of perjury
References
11
Case No. ADJ6905239
Regular
Oct 07, 2025

ROBERT GARRISON vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK CMS

The applicant filed a petition seeking to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) due to alleged bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition, along with the WCJ's Report and Recommendation. The Board determined that the petition did not establish valid grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, citing that expressions of opinion in official duties or erroneous rulings do not constitute bias. Consequently, the WCAB denied the applicant's petition for disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ BiasLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641Unqualified OpinionState of Mind Evincing EnmityWCAB Rule 10960Affidavit or DeclarationTimely Filing
References
10
Case No. ADJ9709184
Regular
Mar 12, 2025

JOHN GUY vs. AV DECKING, AIG CLAIMS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a Petition for Disqualification against a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The petition alleged grounds for disqualification based on an unqualified opinion or bias. After reviewing the WCJ's report, the Board determined that the petition did not provide sufficient facts under penalty of perjury to establish the grounds for disqualification as per Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Additionally, a Compromise and Release had been approved, rendering the petition moot. Consequently, the Petition for Disqualification was denied by the Board.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641affidavitdeclarationprejudicebiasunqualified opinionevidence
References
13
Case No. ADJ2275429 (VNO 0463950)
Regular
Mar 05, 2025

VINCENT DOWNEY vs. TECHNICOLOR, INC.; PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY; TECHNICOLOR FILM SERVICES; FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; DELUXE LABORATORIES; LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as successive, finding it reiterated previously raised issues without presenting new evidence. Additionally, the Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Disqualification against the Workers' Compensation Judge, citing untimeliness and a lack of sufficient factual allegations to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. The decision emphasizes that prior adverse rulings or expressions of opinion based on evidence do not constitute bias for disqualification.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for DisqualificationLien ClaimantLabor Code section 5909EAMSWCJ ReportCode of Civil Procedure section 641WCAB Rule 10960Successive Petition
References
19
Case No. ADJ14178627
Regular
Feb 15, 2023

ELISANDRO CAMPOS vs. PRODESSE PROPERTY GROUP, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Elisandro Campos's petition to disqualify the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The Board found that the petition lacked specific facts, under penalty of perjury, to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641. Legal precedent dictates that conclusory allegations or subjective perceptions of bias are insufficient, and judicial expressions of opinion based on evidence do not constitute grounds for disqualification. The Board also admonished the applicant for filing duplicative and potentially frivolous pleadings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationWCJdisqualification groundsCode of Civil Procedure section 641unqualified opinionbiasenmityWCAB Rule 10960affidavit
References
8
Case No. ADJ10678864
Regular
Aug 08, 2025

ALEX CASTILLO MASIS vs. EAST BAY FOODS INC, EMPLOYERS ASSURANCE SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed a Petition for Disqualification filed against a Workers' Compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The petition alleged grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641, citing an unqualified opinion or bias. Upon review of the record and the WCJ's report, the Board found the petition lacked sufficient factual allegations, declared under penalty of perjury, to establish disqualification. Although the WCJ suggested sanctions for false statements by applicant's attorney, the Board declined to impose them but admonished the attorney for not being candid and truthful. Therefore, the Petition for Disqualification was denied.

Petition for DisqualificationLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10960Judicial BiasPrejudgmentWCJ ReportSanctionsRule 10421False Declarations
References
8
Case No. ADJ7981413; ADJ2876358
Regular
Jun 03, 2025

LORI WILLIAMS vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Applicant Lori Williams filed a petition to disqualify WCJ Elizabeth Dehn, alleging bias due to inexperience, ignored medical treatment requests, and lack of penalties. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered the petition and the WCJ's report. The WCAB, adopting the WCJ's report, denied the petition, citing that the petition lacked detailed facts under penalty of perjury as required by WCAB Rule 10960 and failed to establish grounds for disqualification under Labor Code section 5311 and Code of Civil Procedure section 641(f) and (g). The WCJ stated that no rulings were made on medical treatment or penalties during the status conference, and denied any bias.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ DisqualificationLabor Code 5311Code of Civil Procedure 641BiasEnmityUnqualified OpinionAffidavitsDeclaration Under Penalty of PerjuryVerified Allegations
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 11,082 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