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. ADJ8381778
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

GERALD BROWN vs. GOLDEN GATE PETROLEUM, LIBERTY MUTUAL

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant, Gerald Brown, filed a Petition for Removal and a Petition for Disqualification against Golden Gate Petroleum and Liberty Mutual. The defendants subsequently withdrew both petitions after entering into a Compromise and Release agreement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed both petitions as moot, as they were withdrawn and the settlement was approved by the WCJ. Therefore, no further action will be taken on the dismissed petitions.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8381778mootwithdrawn petitionsdismissaladministrative law judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ6594236
Regular
Aug 12, 2014

HERMALINDA AVILA vs. GOLDEN GATE PETROLEUM, INC., EMPLOYERS INSURANCE OF WAUSAU

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Golden Gate Petroleum, Inc. and Employers Insurance of Wausau's Petition for Reconsideration. The dismissal was due to the petition being filed untimely. Specifically, the defendants failed to file within the 20-day statutory period for reconsideration, plus an additional 5 days for mailing. Therefore, the WCAB adopted the administrative law judge's recommendation and dismissed the petition as procedurally defective.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedUntimelyLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013WCJ Report and RecommendationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardGolden Gate PetroleumInc.Employers Insurance of Wausau
References
0
Case No. 13-02-391-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2005

Keith Hahn v. Whiting Petroleum Corp., Rk Petroleum Corp. and Tremont Energy, L.L.C.

Appellant Keith Hahn appeals a default judgment holding him jointly and severally liable for damages and attorney fees. The underlying suit was filed by appellees Whiting Petroleum Corp., RK Petroleum Corp., and Tremont Energy, L.L.C., alleging misappropriation of mineral production proceeds under joint operating agreements. The trial court denied Hahn’s motion for new trial, which led to this appeal. This dissenting opinion by Justice Castillo concludes that Hahn waived several issues on appeal and failed to satisfy the Craddock test for setting aside a default judgment. Furthermore, the opinion finds the damages award legally sufficient and that the absence of a reporter's record does not necessitate reversal, ultimately concluding to affirm the trial court's judgment.

Default JudgmentMineral Production DisputeJoint Operating AgreementsMisappropriation of ProceedsBreach of Fiduciary DutyConstructive FraudAttorney FeesMotion for New TrialCraddock TestUnliquidated Damages
References
48
Case No. 11-08-00215-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2008

in Re Golden Peanut Company, LLC

Golden Peanut Company, LLC, did not subscribe to workers' compensation insurance but instead offered an Employee Injury Benefit Plan and a Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate. After employee Grant Drennan was killed, his widow, Mindi Drennan, and parents, Louie and Joyce Drennan, filed suit against Golden Peanut rather than claim the plan's death benefit. Golden Peanut moved to abate and compel arbitration, which the trial court denied. On appeal, Golden Peanut argued the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the arbitration agreement was not void and supported by consideration, but ultimately did not bind the Drennans as derivative claimants, and while Mindi Drennan was a third-party beneficiary, conflicting clauses in the agreement precluded a clear determination.

MandamusArbitration AgreementWorkers CompensationEmployee Injury Benefit PlanFederal Arbitration ActTexas Labor CodeDirect Benefit EstoppelDerivative ClaimsThird-Party BeneficiaryEmployment Law
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dick v. John M. Gates Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Alan F. Dick was injured when a temporary deck collapsed at a construction site in July 1984 while he was working for John M. Gates Construction Corporation, the general contractor. He and his wife sued Gates Construction, Harvest Homes (materials manufacturer), and Armand Córtese (property owner) for damages. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Gates Construction but granted summary judgment to Harvest Homes and Córtese. Gates Construction appealed the denial of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, holding that Gates Construction, as the general contractor, had a nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) to provide proper protection and that issues of fact regarding inadequate bracing precluded summary judgment in its favor.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Deck CollapseSummary JudgmentGeneral ContractorNondelegable DutyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyConstruction Site Accident
References
4
Case No. E2019-00712-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2020

Joanna L. Golden v. Cynthia D. Powers

This appeal addresses a personal injury case where Joanna L. Golden, a pedestrian, was struck by a car driven by Cynthia D. Powers. The Circuit Court jury found Golden 80% at fault and Powers 20%, awarding Golden $300,000. Plaintiffs Joanna L. Golden and Douglas K. Rice appealed, alleging the Trial Court failed to act as a thirteenth juror and that the jury's fault allocation was unsupported and prejudiced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding the Trial Court properly fulfilled its role as thirteenth juror and that material evidence supported the jury's findings, while dismissing claims of jury prejudice as speculative. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying the motion for a new trial.

Personal InjuryNegligenceComparative FaultJury VerdictAppellate ReviewThirteenth JurorMaterial EvidenceDamagesJury PrejudiceCurative Instructions
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Golden Peanut Co., LLC

Grant Drennan, an employee of Golden Peanut Company, LLC (a nonsubscriber to workers’ compensation), died in the course of employment. He was party to an employee benefit plan containing an arbitration agreement for personal injury or wrongful death claims. His widow and parents, Mindi Drennan et al. (collectively 'the Drennans'), filed a wrongful death suit. Golden Peanut's motion to compel arbitration was denied by the trial court. The Supreme Court of Texas conditionally granted Golden Peanut's petition for writ of mandamus, holding that wrongful death beneficiaries are bound by the decedent's arbitration agreement as derivative claimants, citing In re Labatt Food Service, L.P. The Court also determined that Texas Labor Code section 406.033(e), which prohibits pre-injury waivers, does not invalidate arbitration agreements as they are forum-selection clauses, not waivers of substantive rights.

Arbitration AgreementWrongful Death ClaimsEmployee Benefit PlanERISAFederal Arbitration ActMandamus ReliefNonsubscriber EmployerDerivative ClaimsTexas Labor CodeForum Selection
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2018

Golden Spread Coop., Inc. v. Emerson Process Mgmt.

Plaintiff Golden Spread Cooperative, Inc. (joined by intervenor Westport Insurance Company) sued defendant Emerson Process Management Power & Water Solutions, Inc. for damages arising from a defective distributed control system (DCS) supplied by Emerson. The DCS, installed in Golden Spread's Unit 3 steam turbine, allegedly contained a logic error that caused the turbine to overheat and suffer extensive friction damage. Emerson moved for summary judgment, arguing that Golden Spread's claims for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, negligence, and strict product liability were barred by the contract's exclusive repair-or-refund remedy and the economic loss rule. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment for Emerson, concluding that Golden Spread's acceptance of the DCS limited it to warranty claims which Emerson had fulfilled, and that the economic loss rule precluded tort recovery as the damage was to an integrated product, not 'other property.' The Senior Judge adopted these findings and recommendations, granting summary judgment in favor of Emerson.

Economic Loss RuleSummary JudgmentContract LawTort LawBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyStrict Product LiabilityNegligenceComponent PartIntegrated Product
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golden v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

William Golden, a Vietnam veteran, challenged the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of disability benefits. Golden asserted disability since November 1980 due to severe Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and back problems, contrary to the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding of disability commencing November 1985. District Judge Curtin ruled that the ALJ incorrectly applied the treating physician rule by dismissing Dr. Herman Szymanski's retroactive diagnosis as speculative. The court emphasized that a treating physician's long-standing relationship with a patient warrants extra weight for their opinion, which Dr. Szymanski's opinion, supported by other witnesses, demonstrated despite some contradictory medical evidence. Ultimately, the court found the Secretary's denial unsupported by substantial evidence, granted Golden's motion for summary judgment, and remanded the case for benefit calculation.

PTSDDisability BenefitsSocial Security ActTreating Physician RuleRetroactive DiagnosisAdministrative Law JudgeMedical EvidenceVocational RehabilitationMental DisorderBack Pain
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gates v. City of Fort Worth

Richard L. Gates, an employee of the City of Fort Worth, suffered an on-the-job injury in 1975 and subsequently received a worker's compensation settlement. After obtaining a light duty medical release, the City informed Gates it could not re-employ him due to the unavailability of light duty positions. Gates filed suit, alleging wrongful termination in violation of Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art 8307c, claiming discrimination for pursuing a worker's compensation claim. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Fort Worth and its personnel director, F. L. Priore. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Article 8307c does not apply to public employees covered by Article 8309h, and upheld the doctrine of governmental immunity.

Worker's CompensationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatutory InterpretationPublic EmployeesTexas LawRetaliation ClaimAppellate ReviewFort Worth
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 366 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