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 concurring opinion by Judge William C. Koch, Jr. addresses the legal basis for prohibiting ex parte communications between an employer's counsel and an employee's treating physician in a Workers' Compensation Act claim. While the Court's main conclusion relies on an implied-in-law contract theory, Judge Koch advocates for a fiduciary duty stemming from the physician-patient relationship. He clarifies that physicians have a duty of non-disclosure, subject to statutory exceptions for workers' compensation reports, but these exceptions do not permit ex parte communications. The opinion asserts that employees retain their medical privacy unless explicitly altered by law.

Physician-patient privilegeConfidentialityEx parte communicationWorkers' CompensationFiduciary dutyImplied contractMedical records disclosureHIPAALegal ethicsPatient rights
References
34
Case No. 04-82-00017-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1982

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

Chester B. Hovermale, the relator, was confined for contempt due to his failure to pay his former wife, Elizabeth M. Hovermale, a portion of his military retirement pay as mandated by their divorce decree. He initiated a habeas corpus proceeding, contending that the division of military retirement benefits in the divorce decree was void, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in McCarty v. McCarty. The Court of Appeals of Texas, en banc, distinguished McCarty and Hisquierdo based on varying types of preemption. The court declined to retroactively apply McCarty, emphasizing the doctrines of res judicata, finality of judgments, and the importance of stability in family law. Consequently, the court denied Hovermale's request for relief and ordered his remand to the custody of the Sheriff of Bexar County, explicitly rejecting the precedent set by Ex parte Buckhanan.

Preemption DoctrineSupremacy ClauseRetroactive Application of LawRes JudicataFinality of JudgmentsMilitary Retirement BenefitsCommunity Property LawHabeas CorpusContempt of CourtDivorce Decrees
References
47
Case No. 01-23-00174-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2025

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

This case, *Ex parte Angel Eugene*, concerns an appeal from the denial of habeas corpus relief by the 339th District Court in Harris County, Texas. The initial appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the First District Court of Appeals but was remanded by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to assess the trial court's jurisdiction over a contempt judgment. The central legal question revolves around whether the trial court had the authority to issue and subsequently withdraw a contempt judgment and show cause order, both of which were found to be void due to insufficient notice of the alleged offense. The Court of Appeals affirmed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction for both the initial void contempt orders and their purported dismissal. Ultimately, the denial of habeas corpus relief was affirmed because Angel Eugene was no longer under physical restraint at the time of the habeas hearing, despite her release stemming from invalid orders.

Habeas CorpusContempt JudgmentJurisdictionVoid OrderShow Cause OrderAppellate ReviewCriminal ProcedureDue ProcessRestraint of LibertyTexas Court of Criminal Appeals
References
17
Case No. 03-05-00585-CR, 03-05-00586-CR, 03-05-00589-CR, 03-05-00590-CR, 03-05-00591-CR, 03-05-00592-CR, 03-05-00593-CR, 03-05-00594-CR, 03-05-00595-CR, 03-05-00596-CR, 03-05-00597-CR, 03-05-00598-CR, 03-05-00599-CR, 03-05-00600-CR, 03-05-00601-CR, 03-05-00602-CR, 03-05-00603-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2008

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

James W. Ellis and John Dominick Colyandro sought the dismissal of indictments accusing them of accepting unlawful campaign contributions and money laundering. They argued that the election code provisions were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, and that the money laundering statute in effect at the time of the alleged offense was unconstitutionally vague. The trial court denied relief. The Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the orders of the district court, holding that the election code's prohibitions on corporate political contributions are not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and the pre-2005 version of the money laundering statute is not unconstitutionally vague on its face as it did not include checks.

Constitutional LawVagueness DoctrineOverbreadth DoctrineCampaign FinanceMoney LaunderingElection LawFirst AmendmentCorporate Political ContributionsStatutory InterpretationCriminal Indictments
References
83
Case No. 03-05-00585-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2008

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

James W. Ellis and John Dominick Colyandro appealed the denial of their pretrial habeas corpus petitions, seeking dismissal of indictments for unlawful campaign contributions and money laundering. They argued that the Texas Election Code provisions and the money laundering statute were unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. The Court of Appeals for the Third District of Texas affirmed the district court's orders. The court held that the election code's restrictions on corporate campaign contributions were not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, and that the pre-2005 money laundering statute, which did not include checks or other negotiable instruments as "funds," was also not facially vague.

Campaign FinanceMoney LaunderingConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeOverbreadth ChallengeFirst AmendmentCorporate Political ContributionsElection CodeStatutory InterpretationPretrial Habeas Corpus
References
50
Case No. 03-21-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves a dispute over the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), established to ensure affordable telecommunications services statewide. Rural telecommunication service providers (Rural Providers) sued the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and its Commissioners when the PUC stopped paying full TUSF support amounts. The Rural Providers alleged ultra vires acts by the Commissioners for underfunding TUSF and creating a payment hierarchy, and violations of the APA for implementing these changes without proper rulemaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the Commissioners acted ultra vires and violated APA rulemaking procedures. The decision affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded in part for damages on a regulatory takings claim.

Texas Universal Service FundTelecommunications RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRural TelecommunicationsRegulatory TakingsUltra Vires ActAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentMandamus Relief
References
76
Case No. ADJ9180559
Regular
Sep 18, 2015

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

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding a prior Minute Order. The WCJ had found ex-parte communication by the defendant and ordered a new QME panel without a trial or sworn testimony. The Board found this violated the defendant's due process rights, as no evidence was presented to support the ex-parte communication finding. The case is returned to the trial level for a hearing on all issues, including alleged ex-parte communication, with parties afforded the chance to present evidence and witnesses.

Petition for RemovalMinute OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorEx-parte CommunicationDue ProcessWCJReplacement QME PanelLabor Code Section 5313Admitted EvidenceProof of Service
References
1
Case No. ADJ11584415
Regular
Sep 30, 2019

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

This case involves an applicant's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision that denied temporary disability benefits and a motion to strike a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (QME) reports. The applicant alleged ex parte communication between the defendant and the QME, violating Labor Code section 4062.3. The WCAB granted reconsideration, finding that the issue of ex parte communication was not adequately addressed due to conflicting dates and unadmitted evidence. The matter is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to determine if ex parte communication occurred and to address the temporary disability issue.

WCABAOE/COEQMEex parte communicationLabor Code section 4062.3Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderremovaltemporary disabilityprimary treating physician
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1998

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

In this case, the court addresses an application for an ex parte order of protection against a defendant charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, stemming from a single threatening telephone call. The Assistant District Attorney sought the order based on new facts not included in the original accusatory instrument. Judge Joel B. Gewanter denied the application, interpreting CPL 530.13 (2) to limit ex parte orders of protection solely to factual allegations present within the filed accusatory instrument. The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. It suggested that for new charges, a new complaint and arrest would be the appropriate procedure for issuing such an order.

Aggravated HarassmentSecond DegreeEx Parte Order of ProtectionCriminal Procedure LawCPL 530.13MisdemeanorFirst ImpressionTelephone CallThreatening StatementDue Process
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The City of Hillsboro enacted an ordinance regulating street vending within its fire limits, prohibiting general peddlers but exempting those selling products grown on their own property. Relator Bradshaw was arrested for violating this ordinance by peddling apples not grown on his land. He challenged his restraint via a writ of habeas corpus, arguing the ordinance constituted void class legislation under the Texas Constitution. The county judge remanded Bradshaw, a decision which was subsequently appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that municipalities possess the authority to regulate street usage and peddling, and that the ordinance's classification was a reasonable exercise of police power, justified by public safety (fire access) and health concerns. The court also clarified that Hill County lacked the authority to permit street obstruction within city limits.

PeddlingStreet VendingCity OrdinanceClass LegislationEqual ProtectionMunicipal PowersPublic StreetsHabeas CorpusPolice PowerTexas Law
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 3,335 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