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. 05-15-00796-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2015

Christopher Click and Jerry Lindemann v. Transport Workers Union Local 556

Chris Click and Jerry Lindemann, as appellants, filed this brief with the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas. They are appealing a judgment from the 116th Civil District Court of Dallas County in their case against Transport Workers Union Local 556. The appellants contend that the trial court, presided over by Judge Tonya Parker, erred by not including specific monetary awards for them in the final judgment, despite having previously granted their motions for summary judgment. They argue they are entitled to pre and post-judgment interest, court costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees, citing legal precedents regarding the reimbursement of union officers who successfully defend against litigation. The brief provides a detailed procedural history and factual background of the dispute within the union, asserting that their actions were not a breach of fiduciary duty as alleged by the union.

Civil AppealSummary JudgmentMotion to Modify JudgmentFiduciary DutyUnion OfficersLabor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Attorneys' FeesCourt CostsPre-judgment InterestPost-judgment Interest
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
Case No. ADJ11136346, ADJ10857795
Regular
Mar 08, 2019

IRMA NELSON vs. SAFEWAY/ALBERTSON'S HOLDINGS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a petition for disqualification against a WCJ. The petition failed to provide specific, factual allegations under penalty of perjury to support claims of bias or an expressed opinion on the merits. Because the petition lacked the required factual basis under Labor Code section 5311 and relevant procedural rules, it was insufficient to warrant disqualification.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641unqualified opinionbiasenmityWCAB Rule 10452affidavit
References
6
Case No. ADJ9242952 (MF) ADJ9242953
Regular
May 15, 2018

KERRINA CRAGUN vs. VARGO PHYSICAL THERAPY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case involves applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior decision that affirmed a joint findings award. Applicant argued the defendant's answer was procedurally flawed and contained factual inaccuracies, warranting penalties for unreasonable delay of medical treatment. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding that while the defendant violated a rule by attaching exhibits, the violation did not invalidate their answer. The Board also found the factual inaccuracy in the answer was not an intentional misrepresentation, and that it lacked jurisdiction to order a physician to treat the applicant.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical Review (IMR)WCAB Rule 10842Secondary Treating PhysicianStipulation and AwardSanctions
References
2
Case No. ADJ8255413, ADJ8255415, ADJ8255416, ADJ8684388
Regular
Nov 02, 2016

LERHONE WILLIAMS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer, in four sentences: The applicant, LeRhone Williams, filed a Petition for Disqualification seeking a new judge, alleging bias due to a factual error in a prior report and denial of an examination. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition, the judge's report, and the applicant's supplemental response. The WCAB found the petition procedurally deficient for lacking a sworn declaration and substantive merit, as alleged errors do not establish bias. Consequently, the WCAB denied the Petition for Disqualification on both procedural and substantive grounds.

WCABPetition for DisqualificationLabor Code section 5311Code of Civil Procedure section 641WCJin pro peraffidavitdeclarationbiasprejudice
References
11
Case No. ADJ7940254
Regular
May 02, 2014

GABRIELA CEBALLOS vs. WEST COAST VALET SERVICES, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant, Rehab Solutions, seeking reconsideration of a decision disallowing its claim for durable medical goods. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, affirming the administrative law judge's (WCJ) findings. The WCJ disallowed the lien due to procedural defects, including improper use of authorization requests, and a lack of substantial medical evidence demonstrating benefit to the injured worker. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report, noting factual misrepresentations and procedural errors by the lien claimant, and denied the petition for reconsideration.

Rehab SolutionsLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseProcedural DefectsSubstantial Medical EvidenceDurable Medical GoodsRequest for AuthorizationInterferential UnitUtilization Review
References
0
Case No. ADJ3137374 (AHM 0123897)
Regular
Apr 17, 2018

Patricia Delaney vs. FULLERTON JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL; permissibly self-insured, administered by ADMINSURE ONTARIO

The applicant sought removal and disqualification of the administrative law judge (ALJ), alleging procedural errors, exclusion of evidence, and discrimination. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm warranting removal, as reconsideration after a final decision would be an adequate remedy. The WCAB also found no factual basis to disqualify the ALJ, noting the applicant's petition lacked specific allegations required by statute. Furthermore, the WCAB reiterated that evidence exclusion was due to failure to serve the defendant, and referral for rating is a standard procedural step.

Petition for RemovalDisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeVacating SubmissionPrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationDisability Evaluation UnitExhibits
References
10
Case No. ADJ7721618
Regular
Feb 14, 2020

Michelle Nichols vs. County of Los Angeles, Child Support Services Department

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the previous award due to procedural issues. The WCAB found that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to make a clear finding on the disputed amount of unpaid temporary disability benefits and incorrectly treated the defendant's payment of regular salary as a stipulated fact regarding credit. Additionally, the WCAB determined that the defendant was denied due process regarding the imposition of sanctions and attorney's fees, as these issues were not properly raised at trial. The case is remanded to the trial level for further proceedings to address these factual and procedural deficiencies.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationTemporary DisabilityPenaltiesLabor Code Section 5814Attorney's FeesLabor Code Section 5813Labor Code Section 5814.5SanctionsDue Process
References
0
Case No. ADJ11026657
Regular
Feb 27, 2020

Monnie Wright vs. California Public Employees' Retirement System, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the finding that collateral estoppel prevents them from determining industrial causation for applicant Monnie Wright's injury under Government Code section 21166. A prior jury found Wright's injury arose out of employment but not in the course of employment. The WCAB has jurisdiction to determine industrial causation for CalPERS disability claims, applying procedural rules and factual findings. However, collateral estoppel, being a hybrid substantive/procedural issue, means the prior jury's determination on "arising out of" but not "in the course of" employment precludes the WCAB from making a new finding of industrial causation (AOE/COE).

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDCALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEMLegally UninsuredSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDClaims AdministratorOPINION AND DECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONGovernment Code section 21166collateral estoppelindustrial causationarising out of and in the course of employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCusker v. Hibu PLC

James McCusker initiated a lawsuit against his former employer, hibu plc, hibu Inc., and Michael Pocock, alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law and defamation. The case, initially filed in Pennsylvania, was removed to federal court and later transferred to the present court. The defendants sought partial dismissal of the defamation claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). They contended that the communication in question was privileged, factually true, or merely an expression of opinion. The Court, however, denied the defendants' motion, determining that the communication could be interpreted as defamatory and that issues regarding privilege abuse, truthfulness, and the nature of the statements were factual matters suitable for jury deliberation.

Defamation ClaimMotion to DismissEmployment LawCorporate CommunicationsConditional PrivilegeTruth as DefenseStatements of OpinionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection LawTort Law
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 5,795 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