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. 14-12-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2012

in Re New Hampshire Insurance Company, Gallagher Bassett Services,Inc and Manuel Aragon

Relators New Hampshire Insurance Company, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., and Manuel Aragon sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Jaclanel McFarland after she denied their plea to the jurisdiction in a bad faith lawsuit filed by Catherine Penarugia. Penarugia's lawsuit stemmed from an alleged delay in handling her workers' compensation claim, despite an administrative decision extending her compensable injury. The relators argued Penarugia failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals denied the petition, finding that the relators did not demonstrate the trial court abused its discretion. The court noted that a claimant is not required to seek review of undisputed issues, and the record lacked sufficient information to confirm if all issues were fully decided by the administrative body.

Workers' CompensationMandamusPlea to the JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesInsurance Bad FaithTexas Court of AppealsAbuse of DiscretionExhaustion of RemediesDWC DecisionExtent of Injury
References
10
Case No. 2-07-296-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2008

Valean Childers v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Myrtis Lacy and Zurich American Insurance Company

This case involves an appeal by Valean Childers against Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Myrtis Lacy, and Zurich American Insurance Company, challenging a summary judgment granted based on the statute of limitations in a bad-faith lawsuit. Childers filed a bad-faith claim stemming from a workers' compensation dispute. The core issue was when the two-year statute of limitations began to run: upon the initial denial of her claim in March 2003, or a subsequent denial in June/July 2004, after the first dispute was resolved. The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the statute of limitations had run on the claim related to the March 2003 denial. However, it reversed and remanded the part of the judgment related to the June/July 2004 denials, holding that a new denial of benefits after a prior one has been fully and finally resolved can restart the statute of limitations for a new bad-faith claim.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsBad Faith ClaimSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance DenialCause of Action AccrualAdministrative RemediesTexas LawInsurance Carrier
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deluca v. Arch Insurance Group

This case involves an appeal from an order and judgment concerning an arbitration award. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, confirmed an arbitration award dated December 12, 2011, in favor of the petitioner, and denied a cross-petition by Arch Insurance Group and Gallagher Bassett Services to vacate the award. Arch Insurance Group and Gallagher Bassett Services appealed this decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order dated June 5, 2012, as the right of direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment. The court affirmed the judgment, finding the petitioner's service of the demand for arbitration proper and noting that insufficiencies did not warrant vacatur. The arbitrator's award was found to have evidentiary support and a rational basis, and was not duplicative of any worker’s compensation benefits. One bill of costs was awarded to the petitioner.

Arbitration ConfirmationArbitration Award VacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewInsurance ArbitrationUninsured MotoristUnderinsured MotoristEvidentiary SupportArbitrary and Capricious StandardSufficiency of Arbitration Demand
References
9
Case No. ADJ2329061
Regular
Jun 24, 2014

Irene Cota vs. C.R. Courier Services, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

Gallagher Bassett's untimely and unverified petition for removal was dismissed. The Appeals Board granted removal on its own motion to address a lack of clarity regarding Gallagher's party status and the case's disposition. Due to missing or incomplete electronic and paper files, the Board could not determine Gallagher's involvement or the case's procedural history. The Order continuing the case for sanctions was rescinded, and the matter was returned to the trial level to identify the correct employer/administrator before proceeding.

Petition for RemovalDismissalRemoval on Board MotionDecision After RemovalUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionOrder dated April 252014Mandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJ
References
0
Case No. 01-07-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2008

Rosa Schwartz v. the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., and Belinda Ybarra

Rosa Schwartz sued The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, Gallagher Basset Services, Inc., and Belinda Ybarra (collectively, “Gallagher”) for damages stemming from alleged unreasonable delay and denial in authorizing her requested foot surgery. The trial court granted Gallagher's plea to the jurisdiction, ruling Schwartz failed to exhaust administrative remedies and dismissing her claims. Schwartz appealed, contending the trial court erred in its exhaustion of remedies ruling and in granting the plea regarding claims for a neuroma deformity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Schwartz failed to exhaust administrative remedies regarding the foot surgery preauthorization dispute and that her petition did not adequately allege claims related to the neuroma deformity denial. The court concluded that the impediment to jurisdiction regarding the foot surgery could not be cured due to untimely requests for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionAdministrative RemediesMedical NecessityFoot SurgeryNeuroma DeformityInsurance DenialPlea to the JurisdictionAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
15
Case No. ADJ796326 SBR 0335473
Regular
Jan 25, 2012

REVIN DELONEY vs. ANGELICA LINENS, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The applicant, Revin Deloney, filed a Petition for Removal with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB). The WCAB reviewed the petition and the report of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). Based on the record and adopting the WCJ's reasoning, the WCAB has denied the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportdenial of removalAdministrative Law JudgeAngelica LinensGallagher BassettDeloneySan Bernardino District Officeremoval petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ6513976
Regular
Aug 12, 2010

MARIA EMPEDRADO vs. DENNY'S, GALLAGHER BASSETT

This case involves Maria Empedrado's workers' compensation claim against Denny's and its third-party administrator, Gallagher Bassett. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied Empedrado's petition for reconsideration of an earlier decision. The WCAB adopted the findings of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) and gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determinations.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONWCJ reportcredibility findingGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Petition for Reconsiderationadministrative law judgeADJ6513976MARIA EMPEDRADODENNY'S
References
1
Case No. ADJ526691, ADJ3636578
Regular
Mar 28, 2013

Jitka Van Dyne vs. United Airlines, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for removal. The WCAB adopted the Judge's report, stating removal is an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. The applicant failed to object to the declaration of readiness and has an adequate remedy at trial for evidentiary disputes. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIrreparable HarmSignificant PrejudiceDeclaration of ReadinessAdmissibility of EvidenceDue DiligenceAneurysmIndustrial InjuryLay Opinion
References
3
Case No. ADJ3841918 (SAL 0117589), ADJ2554517 (SAL 0113325), ADJ3083210 (SAL 0113326)
Regular
May 21, 2012

ALBERTA AQUINO vs. HYATT CORPORATION, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a March 5, 2012 decision concerning Alberta Aquino's claims against Hyatt Corporation and Gallagher Bassett. This grant is due to the need for further study of the factual and legal issues to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future filings related to these cases must be submitted in writing to the WCAB Commissioners' office and not electronically or to any district office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationHyatt CorporationGallagher BassettStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesDecision After ReconsiderationElectronic Adjudication Management SystemSalinas District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ10588461
Regular
Dec 21, 2018

MICHAEL BAISCH vs. BALFOUR BEATTY; GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Balfour Beatty and Gallagher Bassett. This dismissal was based on the applicant's attorney's failure to provide proof of service demonstrating compliance with Appeals Board Rule 10778. Rule 10778 requires an attorney seeking an increase in fees to notify the applicant of the adverse interest and the applicant's right to independent counsel. The WCAB accepted the applicant's attorney's request to file supplemental pleadings but ultimately found the petition grounds for dismissal due to this procedural deficiency.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportAppeals Board Rule 10848supplemental pleadingProof of ServiceAppeals Board Rule 10778attorney's feeadverse interestindependent counsel
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 582 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