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. ADJ9240712
Regular
Jul 12, 2016

LUCRECIA REYES vs. DONNA EICHHORN, dba DONNA'S TAMALES, SEQUOIA INSURANCE COMPANY

In the case of Reyes v. Donna's Tamales, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of an April 26, 2016 decision. The WCAB determined reconsideration was necessary to allow for a more thorough study of the factual and legal issues. This action is intended to ensure a complete understanding of the record and facilitate a just and reasoned decision. All future correspondence regarding the petition must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners and not with any district office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationSan Francisco District OfficeAmtrust North AmericaSequoia Insurance CompanyDonna's TamalesLucretia ReyesStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal Issues
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Puga v. Donna Fruit Co., Inc.

Juan Torrez's survivors, Genoveva Puga and Rutila Torrez, initiated a wrongful death action against Donna Fruit Company following his death. Their previous workers' compensation claim was denied by the Industrial Accident Board, which determined there was no employment under the Workers' Compensation Act. Donna Fruit Company subsequently moved for summary judgment, asserting that the Board's unappealed ruling rendered the employment issue res judicata. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgments of the lower courts, ruling that the Board's jurisdiction was confined to employment as defined by the Act. Consequently, for an excluded employee like a farm laborer, the Board's finding of 'no employment' only signified no employment within a covered capacity under the Act. Therefore, the issue of Torrez's employment as a farm laborer was not actually litigated, precluding the application of collateral estoppel. Furthermore, the Court noted that Donna Fruit Company failed to provide evidence of voluntary compensation coverage for farm workers, thereby invalidating the defense concerning the waiver of common law and statutory rights.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation ActRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelEmployment StatusFarm Laborer ExclusionIndustrial Accident BoardSummary JudgmentJurisdiction LimitationVoluntary Coverage
References
10
Case No. E2001-01496-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2002

Donna Bunker v. Roger Finks

The case involves an appeal from a divorce decree modification concerning child custody and support between Donna J. (Finks) Bunker (Mother) and Roger Finks (Father). The Trial Court found a material change in circumstances but denied Father's request for custody modification, instead restricting his visitation with the younger child to Chattanooga due to Mother's interference. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of custody change and the child support calculation, but found the indefinite visitation restriction to Chattanooga constituted error. The appellate court remanded the case, directing the Trial Court to set a date for the younger child's visitation with Father in Ohio to recommence, aiming to rebuild the parent-child relationship.

Custody DisputeChild VisitationChild SupportParental AlienationMaterial Change of CircumstancesBest Interests of the ChildAbuse of DiscretionDomestic RelationsChild WelfareExpert Witness Testimony
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Puga v. Donna Fruit Co.

This case addresses whether a decedent's family can pursue statutory "wrongful death" actions after the Industrial Accident Board (IAB) denied their Workers' Compensation claim. The decedent, Juan Torrez, died in a work-related accident. His family filed a Workers' Compensation claim, which the IAB denied, finding Torrez was not an employee of Donna Fruit Co., Inc. No appeal was filed regarding the IAB's ruling. Subsequently, the family filed a wrongful death action in district court, which was dismissed via summary judgment. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the IAB's adjudication was final due to the family's failure to comply with the mandatory and jurisdictional twenty-day period for appealing the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathIAB AdjudicationJurisdictional DeadlineSummary JudgmentEmployment StatusStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewTexas LawClaim Denial
References
7
Case No. CV-24-1036
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Donna Brickner

Claimant Donna Brickner appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which found she did not sustain a permanent total disability but rather a permanent partial disability of 90% following a work injury in 2019. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found a permanent partial disability based on a carrier consultant's opinion that claimant was capable of sedentary work with significant restrictions. Claimant sought administrative review, arguing for a permanent total disability based on medical evidence. The Board affirmed its decision, relying on the claimant's treating physician's findings and the claimant's self-reported functional abilities, which indicated she was capable of greater activity than the carrier's consultant suggested, thus concluding there was insufficient credible medical evidence for a permanent total disability.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityMedical EvidenceLumbar Spine InjuryChronic Pain SyndromeSedentary Work RestrictionsDisability AssessmentAdministrative ReviewAppellate Decision
References
6
Case No. No. 10-08-00306-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2009

Donna Robinson v. Elliott Electric Supply

Donna Robinson was sued by Elliott Electric Supply on a guaranty agreement, leading to a default judgment against her. Robinson's subsequent motion for a new trial was overruled by operation of law. On appeal, Robinson argued that service was deficient or she met the Craddock test elements for a new trial. The appellate court found that Robinson satisfied all three elements of the Craddock test, demonstrating that her failure to appear was not intentional, she presented a meritorious defense, and granting a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestService of ProcessGuaranty AgreementAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureRemandConscious Indifference
References
15
Case No. NO. 14-1029
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Jefferson County, Texas v. Donna Davis

Donna Davis was terminated from the Jefferson County Purchasing Department. A jury found age discrimination and First Amendment violations, awarding her over $1.3 million. Jefferson County appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both liability claims and the damages for future mental anguish. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the age discrimination finding but eliminated the award for future mental anguish. Jefferson County now petitions the Supreme Court of Texas, arguing that the evidence is legally insufficient to support all claims and remedies awarded, contending her termination was for a permissible reason (the December meeting), and that limitations on damages should apply.

Age DiscriminationWrongful TerminationFirst AmendmentFree SpeechPublic EmployeeGovernmental ImmunityDamagesFuture Mental AnguishTexas Labor CodePretext
References
107
Case No. 2021-06-0188
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2021

Davis, Donna v. Amazon.com, Inc.

This interlocutory appeal stems from the denial of an employer's motion to deny the employee's request for an independent medical examiner from the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation’s Medical Impairment Rating Registry (MIRR). Employee Donna Davis sustained a knee injury, and her treating physician, Dr. James Rungee, found no permanent impairment but imposed permanent restrictions based on a functional capacity evaluation. Employer Amazon.com, Inc. argued against an MIRR examination, contending that the restrictions stemmed from a pre-existing condition, thus negating a dispute over impairment. The Court of Workers’ Compensation Claims denied the employer's motion, concluding that a dispute existed given the physician's restrictions without an impairment rating. The Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed this decision, disagreeing with the employer's interpretation and remanding the case.

Workers' CompensationMedical ImpairmentPermanent RestrictionsPre-existing ConditionIndependent Medical ExaminerFunctional Capacity EvaluationAppellate ReviewMotion in LimineKnee InjuryTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. 2-02-364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2003

Old Republic Insurance Company v. Donna Fagan

Old Republic Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Donna Fagan in a workers' compensation case. Fagan claimed a neck injury suffered during her employment and sought benefits. Old Republic disputed the claim, but a contested case hearing officer and appeals panel ruled in Fagan's favor. The trial court then granted Fagan's motion for summary judgment. Old Republic appealed this decision and also argued the trial court erred by not filing findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating that Old Republic failed to provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding a compensable injury. The court also clarified that findings of fact and conclusions of law are not appropriate in summary judgment proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNo-Evidence Summary JudgmentBurden of ProofCompensable InjuryCourse and Scope of EmploymentFindings of FactConclusions of LawTexas Law
References
9
Case No. 09-07-026 CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2008

Donna Jean Morgan v. Mitchell Delano Morgan

This appeal addresses a trial court's geographical residency restriction on the primary residence of children in a divorce proceeding. Appellant Donna Jean Morgan challenged the order, arguing it constituted an abuse of discretion, was not in the children's best interest, and infringed upon her fundamental rights. The trial court had restricted the children's residence to the Kirbyville Independent School District. The Court of Appeals reviewed the decision under an abuse of discretion standard, considering the statutory factors for the best interest of the child and the constitutional arguments. The court found that the trial court possessed sufficient information to exercise its discretion and that the application of that discretion was not erroneous, thereby affirming the trial court's judgment.

DivorceChild Residency RestrictionGeographical RestrictionParental RightsBest Interest of ChildAbuse of DiscretionConstitutional LawDue ProcessTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 124 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