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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2014

Aguirre v. ISC Constructors, LLC

The District Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation regarding motions to dismiss. The defendant, ISC Constructors, LLC, objected to the report, arguing for dismissal with prejudice due to plaintiffs' delays in service. The Court overruled these objections, agreeing that while there was a clear record of delay by plaintiffs, the aggravating factors for dismissal with prejudice were not present for claims from cases l:12-CV-228 and 1:13-CV-414, which will proceed with amended pleadings. However, claims from the Hamilton case (l:12-CV-388) were dismissed without prejudice because plaintiffs never properly named or served ISC Constructors in a pleading.

Service of ProcessMotion to DismissMagistrate Judge ReportObjections OverruledDismissal Without PrejudiceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(5)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Fifth Circuit PrecedentStatute of Limitations
References
27
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00275 [223 AD3d 569]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2024

Maurizaca v. 201 Water St., LLC

In this case, third-party defendant Apex Restoration Corp. appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment. The motion was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County, because Apex failed to demonstrate good cause for its delay in filing the motion. Specifically, the court noted that Apex did not require an IME report to meet its prima facie burden under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 and also delayed filing for several months even after obtaining other relevant reports. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that Apex's arguments on the merits were irrelevant to establishing good cause for the delay. The court reiterated that establishing good cause for filing delays is a prerequisite for such motions.

summary judgment motiondelay in filinggood causecommon-law indemnitycontribution claimsWorkers' Compensation Lawappellate affirmationprima facie burdenprocedural errorcivil procedure rules
References
5
Case No. 477 F.Supp. 897
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 1979

Rheuark v. Shaw

This federal civil rights case addresses constitutional violations stemming from extensive delays in preparing trial transcripts for indigent criminal appellants in Dallas County, Texas. Plaintiffs John Doescher, Robert Allen Jordan, and Jack Rheuark alleged that delays of nine to twenty-three months violated their due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court found these delays unconstitutional, awarding nominal damages to Doescher and Rheuark, and $3,000 in actual damages to Jordan. While denying injunctive relief and punitive damages, the court determined that individual defendants—Judge Metcalf, Dallas County Commissioners, and court reporter Paul Bastas—were immune from personal damage liability due to judicial, legislative, and qualified immunities, respectively. However, Dallas County was held liable for damages and attorneys' fees due to an official policy and custom of inadequately funding court reporters that directly caused the unconstitutional delays, and attorneys' fees were awarded to the plaintiffs against the individual defendants in their official capacities and Dallas County.

Due Process ViolationSpeedy AppealCivil RightsIndigent DefendantsTrial TranscriptsCourt DelaysJudicial ImmunityLegislative ImmunityQualified ImmunityMunicipal Liability
References
99
Case No. ADJ2965812 (SAC 0308365)
Regular
Apr 23, 2012

CHRISTINE KRAUSE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SECRETARY FOR RESOURCES AGENCY, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded an order compelling the defendant to provide cervical spine surgery, deferring the issue pending a final report from a Spinal Surgery Second Opinion Physician (SSSOP). The SSSOP's report was delayed beyond the statutory 45-day timeframe, but the WCAB found neither party was at fault for this delay, and obtaining the SSSOP's opinion was crucial for a proper decision. The WCAB dismissed the defendant's petition for removal. A dissenting commissioner argued the defendant should be liable for the surgery due to the delayed process, citing precedent that placed the burden on the employer to ensure timely adherence to statutory procedures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSpinal Surgery Second Opinion PhysicianUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4062(b)Industrial InjuryCervical Spine SurgeryTreating PhysicianIndustrial InjuryDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Dudas v. Town of Lancaster

The claimant, a laborer, allegedly injured his right ankle on February 28, 2007, after slipping on ice at the employer's Town Hall. Despite ongoing symptoms, the claimant delayed seeking medical treatment and reporting the injury to the employer until June 27, 2007. The employer's workers' compensation carrier initially authorized medical care but later controverted the claim due to conflicting reports regarding the cause of injury. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge disallowed the claim for failure to provide timely notice, a decision affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer did not waive the defense of timely notice and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in disallowing the claim given the claimant's delay in reporting and treatment.

Workers' CompensationTimely NoticeAnkle InjurySlip and FallEmployer PrejudiceMedical Treatment DelayClaim DisallowanceBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewWork-Related Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szwalla v. Time Warner Cable, LLC

The plaintiff, Ms. Szwalla, an account executive, sued her employer, Time Warner Cable, alleging sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII. Her claims stemmed from alleged inappropriate comments and actions by managers Paul Noyd and Cory Karanik, and subsequent reassignments and warnings regarding sales performance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they exercised reasonable care to prevent harassment and that Ms. Szwalla unreasonably delayed reporting. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that they established the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense against the hostile work environment claim due to their prompt response to reported harassment and Ms. Szwalla's unjustified delay in reporting. Additionally, the court found that none of the alleged retaliatory actions, individually or in aggregate, constituted a materially adverse employment action.

sexual harassmenthostile work environmentretaliationTitle VIIsummary judgmentFaragher/Ellerth defenseadverse employment actionworkplace discriminationemployee disciplinesales performance
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Packer v. Travelers Indemnity Co. of Rhode Island

John Packer, the appellant, suffered a job-related back injury and sued The Travelers Indemnity Company of Rhode Island for bad faith delay in authorizing his back surgery. While medical costs were covered by a workman's compensation policy, Packer alleged that Travelers' delay in approving the surgery constituted bad faith. Medical reports from various physicians presented conflicting opinions regarding the necessity of surgery; some recommended conservative treatment, while Dr. Donald Lazarz eventually recommended surgery. Travelers ultimately approved the surgery in April 1992, around the time the compensation case settled. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Travelers, concluding that a reasonable basis for the delay existed due to the conflicting medical opinions. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court finding no evidence that Travelers acted in bad faith by relying on the expert medical reports.

Bad Faith ClaimInsurance PracticesSummary Judgment AppealConflicting Medical OpinionsDelay in AuthorizationDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingAppellate Court DecisionReasonable Basis for DelayBurden of ProofClaim Adjuster Affidavit
References
14
Case No. ADJ7357973
Regular
Apr 18, 2012

Pete Rios vs. Peppertree Distributors, Inc., FirstComp Omaha for Southern Insurance Company

This case concerns Pete Rios' workers' compensation claim, where the Appeals Board denied his petition for reconsideration. The applicant argued that temporary disability benefits should not be terminated based on a narrow interpretation of Labor Code Section 4656(c)(2). However, the Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that the applicant's injury date of April 24, 2009, falls under LC 4656(c)(2), which limits benefits to 104 weeks within five years from the injury date. The Board noted that jurisdiction remains open for penalties and sanctions regarding delayed temporary disability payments.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPete RiosPeppertree DistributorsInc.FirstComp OmahaSouthern Insurance CompanyOrder Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeTemporary Disability
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 7,282 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