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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case concerns a dispute where Kerrigan Iron Works, Inc., a shipper, sought an injunction against common carriers and Teamsters Local 327. The carriers, including Cook Truck Lines and Hoover Motor Express, refused customary service to Kerrigan due to Local 327 employees not crossing picket lines set by another union (Iron Workers) at Kerrigan's plants. Kerrigan argued this refusal violated state common law and statutes regarding a carrier's public duty. The Chancery Court granted a permanent injunction, which Local 327 appealed, asserting federal labor law preemption and contractual rights to refuse service. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the union's conduct was not a federally protected activity or unfair labor practice, nor was there an exclusive federal remedy, thus preserving state court jurisdiction to enforce common carrier duties.

Labor DisputeInjunctionCommon Carrier DutyState Court JurisdictionFederal PreemptionNational Labor Relations ActPicket LineUnfair Labor PracticesConcerted ActivitiesContract Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Roy Solomon sued his former employer, Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc., alleging negligence in the collection of his urine specimen during a mandatory drug test, which resulted in a false positive for marijuana. This false result led to his termination and inability to secure subsequent employment as a truck driver. A jury found Mission negligent and awarded Solomon damages for medical care, lost earning capacity, mental anguish, and exemplary damages for malice. On appeal, Mission challenged several aspects, including the existence of a duty, proximate cause, and the recoverability of damages. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mission owed its employees a duty of reasonable care in drug test specimen collection and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of negligence, causation, and malice.

NegligenceDrug ScreeningFalse PositiveEmployment LawDamagesMental AnguishExemplary DamagesDepartment of TransportationSpecimen CollectionEmployer Duty
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Claimant's decedent, a superintendent for Eagle Nest Tenancy In Common, died in an unwitnessed one-car motor vehicle accident on the employer's premises. His widow filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, arguing his death was causally related to his employment. Both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed this finding, prompting an appeal by the employer's insurance carrier. The carrier contested that the accident occurred "in the course of employment," despite testimony suggesting the decedent intended to address maintenance issues after returning home. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's amended decision, finding sufficient evidence to support that the accident occurred in the course of employment, especially given the presumption afforded to unwitnessed accidents within the scope of employment under Workers' Compensation Law § 21.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsEmployment CausalityMotor Vehicle FatalityOn-Premises AccidentWorkers' Compensation Board AppealScope of EmploymentUnwitnessed Accident PresumptionJudicial ReviewAppellate Division AffirmationInsurance Carrier Appeal
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case addresses whether a carrier can assert a lien on property owned by a third party who was not involved in the shipping contract. Mayflower Transit, Inc. claimed a lien on lighting equipment belonging to BML Stage Lighting, Inc. and Carbine Management, Inc. after the lessee, SportsLab, Inc., failed to pay transportation and storage fees and declared bankruptcy. The trial court sided with Mayflower, but BML appealed. The appellate court examined both contractual and common law lien claims. It determined that no contractual lien existed because BML was a stranger to Mayflower's contract with SportsLab, and there was no evidence of apparent authority. The court also ruled that Mayflower acted as a contract carrier, not a common carrier, in this specific instance, thus precluding a common law lien. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the judgment, finding no valid lien, and remanded for a new trial on BML's conversion claims.

Carrier's LienContract LawCommon Law LienApparent AuthorityShipping ContractThird-Party LiabilityConversionMootness DoctrineStandard of ReviewInterstate Commerce Act
References
38
Case No. 2017-08-1070
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2018

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves April Heard, an employee of Carrier Corporation, who sustained a back and leg injury on August 24, 2017. Carrier accommodated her light-duty restrictions but she was subject to a seasonal layoff from September 1, 2017, to January 3, 2018. Heard sought temporary disability benefits for this period, arguing she was on light duty. The Court denied her request for temporary partial disability benefits, finding her inability to work during the layoff was due to the seasonal layoff, not her work restrictions. However, Carrier stipulated it would pay temporary total disability benefits for a period from October 26, 2017, through November 13, 2017, when Dr. Lonergan totally restricted her from work.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsSeasonal LayoffLight-Duty RestrictionsTemporary Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployment LawInjury ClaimMedical Restrictions
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2008

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 1985

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

The claimant, a 61-year-old brake press operator, suffered an acute back strain and aggravation of degenerative disc disease, leading to total disability for a period in 1982. He subsequently retired in February 1983, asserting his inability to perform even a light-duty inspector's job offered by his employer due to his ongoing partial disability. Initially, an Administrative Law Judge ruled that the claimant had voluntarily withdrawn from the labor market. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the claimant's retirement was directly attributable to his continuing permanent partial disability, a finding supported by his doctor's reports and his own testimony. The employer and its carrier appealed the Board's decision, but the appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Back StrainDegenerative Disc DiseaseTotal DisabilityPartial DisabilityVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketWorkers' Compensation BoardMedical EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceOrthopedist
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case addresses the scope of a physician's duty when examining a non-patient for a third party. Simon Ramirez, who filed a worker's compensation claim, sued Dr. Carreras for common law negligence, alleging injury during an impairment rating exam conducted for the insurance carrier. The court held that a physician examining a non-patient owes a duty not to injure the examinee, but not the higher standard of care owed in a physician-patient relationship. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment dismissing Ramirez's medical negligence claim due to the absence of a physician-patient relationship. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the common law negligence claim, finding that Ramirez presented sufficient evidence that Dr. Carreras breached his duty not to injure and that this breach proximately caused Ramirez's injuries. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Physician-patient relationshipDuty not to injureCommon law negligenceMedical negligenceSummary judgmentWorker's compensationImpairment ratingProximate causeExpert testimonyMedical Liability Insurance Improvement Act
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves Ann Rupe, a minority shareholder and trustee for Buddy's Trust, who sued other shareholders and directors of Rupe Investment Corporation (RIC) for alleged oppressive actions and breach of fiduciary duties. Rupe claimed the defendants refused to buy her shares or meet with prospective outside buyers. The trial court ordered a $7.3 million buyout, which the court of appeals affirmed in part, finding the refusal to meet prospective purchasers oppressive, but remanding on valuation. The Texas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the defendants' conduct was not 'oppressive' under the Texas receivership statute, as it did not involve an abuse of authority with intent to harm the corporation or create a serious risk of harm to it. The Court clarified that the statute only authorizes the appointment of a rehabilitative receiver and does not permit a direct buyout remedy. Additionally, the Court declined to recognize a new common-law cause of action for 'minority shareholder oppression,' citing existing statutory and common-law protections. The case was remanded to the court of appeals to consider Rupe's breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and the potential for a buyout remedy under that claim.

Shareholder OppressionMinority ShareholdersClosely Held CorporationsFiduciary DutyBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate ReceivershipStatutory InterpretationCommon Law ClaimsCorporate GovernanceStock Buyout
References
95
Case No. 14-18-00668-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2019

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

This case involves an appeal from the dismissal of a suit on jurisdictional grounds, stemming from a dispute over death benefits under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Appellant Ralph Winston Merrill III claimed entitlement to death benefits as the common-law husband of Kristin McLain, a Travis County flight nurse who died in a work-related fall. Travis County, the self-insured carrier, denied the marriage's validity and asserted McLain's parents were the sole beneficiaries. Merrill prevailed at the administrative level, but filed his own suit for judicial review in the 353rd District Court, despite being the prevailing party. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, agreeing that Merrill, as the prevailing party, was not aggrieved and thus lacked standing for judicial review.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsJurisdictionStandingCommon-Law MarriageAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureTexas Labor CodeSelf-Insured Carrier
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 7,657 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