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?

Seven former vivarium technicians, including Teresa Stewart, appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Lexicon Genetics, Inc. The employees had sued Lexicon for false imprisonment, assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence following an investigation into showering protocol breaches at an animal research facility. Lexicon argued the claims were barred by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act (TWCA). The court affirmed the summary judgment on claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence, finding they were either barred by the TWCA or not independent torts. However, the court reversed the summary judgment on the claims for false imprisonment and assault, remanding them to the trial court, as Lexicon failed to prove the managers involved were not corporate vice-principals, thus not satisfying its burden regarding the TWCA's intentional tort exception.

Summary Judgment AppealTexas Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyFalse ImprisonmentAssault and BatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressNegligence ClaimsIntentional Tort ExceptionVice-Principal LiabilityAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

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

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The petitioner, an estate planner and life insurance agent, sought to review a State Tax Commission determination sustaining a deficiency assessment for unincorporated business taxes for various years between 1964 and 1974. The respondent concluded that the petitioner was an independent contractor rather than an employee. Petitioner worked under an agent’s career contract for New England Life Insurance Company and its general agent, but also sold insurance for other principals and operated with considerable independence, including maintaining his own office and incurring substantial business expenses. The court affirmed the determination, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the petitioner was an independent contractor and therefore subject to the unincorporated business tax.

unincorporated business taxindependent contractorinsurance agentState Tax Commissiontax assessmentCPLR Article 78employer controlbusiness expensestax deficiencyappellate review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

A claimant sustained a work-related injury in July 1995 and received a schedule loss of use award, partly from a third-party settlement and a deficiency award from the employer's carrier. The case was closed until January 2006 when the claimant sought payment for prescription medication, leading to the case's reopening. The Workers' Compensation Board transferred liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, as statutory time periods had elapsed and the third-party settlement did not influence their expiration. The Special Fund appealed, arguing that liability for deficiency compensation awards does not shift. The court affirmed the Board's ruling, clarifying that the exception for 'awards for deficiency compensation' in § 25-a (8) only applies when the calculation or payment was delayed due to third-party litigation or settlement, which did not occur in this case.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferDeficiency CompensationThird-Party SettlementStatutory Time PeriodsCase ReopeningAppellate DecisionWorkers' Compensation BoardJudicial Review
References
12
Case No. 05-11-00912-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2013

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case is an appeal from a summary judgment in a deficiency action. Compass Bank, the appellant, challenged the trial court's decision to deny its motion for summary judgment and grant the appellees' motion, which applied a fair market value offset against the deficiency owed. Compass Bank argued that Manchester Platinum Management, Inc., Todd Allan deVeilleneuve, and Allan R. deVeilleneuve had contractually waived their right to such an offset. The appellate court agreed, concluding that the waiver language in both the deed of trust and the guaranty agreements was sufficient to waive the appellees' rights under Texas Property Code section 51.003. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, rendered judgment in favor of Compass Bank for the principal deficiency, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding attorney's fees and interest calculation.

Summary Judgment AppealDeficiency ActionContractual WaiverFair Market Value OffsetGuaranty AgreementsDeed of TrustTexas Property CodeNonjudicial ForeclosurePromissory NoteAppellate Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves an interlocutory appeal of a medical malpractice claim where Baylor University Medical Center, Edmund Sanchez, M.D., and Srinath Chinnakotla, M.D. (appellants) challenged the trial court’s denial of their motions to dismiss. The family of Cheri Jean Wells Biggs, who died after a rabies-infected kidney transplant, sued the appellants for failing to obtain informed consent regarding the high-risk donor's medical and social history. The appellants argued that the family’s expert reports were deficient under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.351(r)(6) for not providing a fair summary of opinions on the standard of care, breach, and causation for each defendant. The appellate court agreed, finding the expert reports deficient for both Baylor and the doctors. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether the family should be granted an extension to cure the deficiencies in their expert reports.

Medical MalpracticeInformed ConsentKidney TransplantExpert Witness SufficiencyTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeStandard of CareCausationAppellate ReviewMotion for RehearingInterlocutory Appeal
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2005

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

Claimant was injured in a work-related automobile accident in 1985, receiving workers’ compensation benefits and settling a personal injury action, with the State Insurance Fund (SIF) applying a $3,000 credit. After the case was reopened in 2003 for medical expenses, SIF attempted to shift liability to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Special Fund disputed this, contending the claim was for deficiency compensation, an exception under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a (8). Both the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed this, reasoning that SIF had already applied its credit against awards not in lieu of first-party benefits, meaning subsequent awards, including medical expenses, constituted deficiency compensation. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that liability does not shift to the Special Fund when deficiency compensation is awarded, particularly since SIF’s payments for lost time beyond three years were not ‘basic economic loss,’ allowing SIF to properly exercise its credit.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesDeficiency CompensationThird-Party SettlementState Insurance FundWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aInsurance Law § 5102Basic Economic LossCredit OffsetMedical Expenses
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2005

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

This case before the Supreme Court of Tennessee addresses a novel question of legal maternity stemming from assisted reproduction. An unmarried couple, Dr. Charles K.G. (genetic father) and Ms. Cindy C. (gestational mother), used anonymously donated eggs fertilized by Charles's sperm, which Cindy carried to term, giving birth to triplets. After their relationship ended, Cindy filed a parentage action for custody and child support. Charles contested her parental standing due to a lack of genetic connection. The juvenile court and Court of Appeals found Cindy to be the legal mother, applying an "intent test." The Supreme Court affirmed Cindy's legal maternal status but vacated the "intent test" and estoppel findings. The Court established legal maternity based on a narrow set of factors: the pre-birth mutual intent for Cindy to be the legal mother and accept parental responsibilities; Cindy's gestation and birth of the children as her own; and the absence of a dispute with the genetic mother. The Court explicitly limited its holding to the specific facts, calling for legislative action on broad assisted reproduction policies. The judgments on custody, child support, and visitation were affirmed.

Parentage ActionAssisted ReproductionEgg DonationGestational CarrierLegal MaternityCustody DisputeChild SupportIntent TestGenetic TestConstitutional Rights
References
37
Case No. ADJ16511542
Regular
Apr 25, 2023

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant Zalana Graham-Bryant's Petition for Removal. The Board rescinded the WCJ's Order Compelling Applicant's Deposition due to procedural deficiencies. These deficiencies included the WCJ's failure to articulate the basis for the order and the defendant's insufficient efforts to meet and confer before seeking compulsion. The case was returned to the WCJ for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling DepositionWCAB Rule 10390Meet and ConferMootnessIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceWCJ OpinionLabor Code Section 5313Rescinded Order
References
4
Case No. ADJ4676707 (RIV 0032408)
Regular
Mar 07, 2014

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

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board affirmed the original award of 15% permanent disability for an admitted neck injury. The applicant's petition for reconsideration, arguing for total disability based on vocational expert testimony and claiming inadequate compensation, was denied. The Board found the petition lacked merit, failed to cite evidence, and was deficient for not addressing contrary medical opinions. Additionally, the applicant's attorney received a strong admonishment for filing a deficient petition but was not sanctioned due to his timely apology and acceptance of responsibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent DisabilityApportionmentVocational ExpertAgreed Medical ExaminerSanctionWCJPetition for ReconsiderationCNA
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 557 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