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. ADJ747812 (LAO 0828642)
Regular
Apr 25, 2013

BENITO ALVARADO vs. GROSS EGG RANCH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Benito Alvarado v. Gross Egg Ranch and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The WCAB found the petition to be untimely and also subject to denial for failing to fairly state material evidence as required by WCAB Rule 10842(a). Specifically, the lien claimant's assertion that the case was never on calendar was contradicted by the electronic record. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyWCAB 10842(a)Material EvidenceFair StatementEAMSEvents RecordCommunications RecordLien ClaimantDismissed
References
0
Case No. ADJ8489417, ADJ8004557, ADJ8004568
Regular
Jun 30, 2015

ROCIO LUMBRANO vs. VOORTMANS EGG RANCH, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves applicant Rocío Lumbrano against Voortmans Egg Ranch and Imperium Insurance Company. The Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration on procedural grounds. The Board also initiated removal proceedings on its own motion and issued a notice of intention to sanction the applicant and/or her representative for engaging in frivolous litigation.

Rocio LumbranoVoortmans Egg RanchImperium Insurance CompanyADJ8489417ADJ8004557ADJ8004568Pomona District OfficePetition for ReconsiderationDismissing PetitionGranting Removal
References
0
Case No. ADJ8004557, ADJ8489417, ADJ8004568
Regular
Oct 26, 2015

ROCO LUMBRANO vs. VOORTMANS EGG RANCH, IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Roco Lumbrano versus Voortmans Egg Ranch and Imperium Insurance Company. The WCAB found that further study of the factual and legal issues was necessary to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future communications regarding the petition must be directed to the Office of the Commissioners, not district offices. The WCAB also noted that trial level actions not related to the petition should continue through EAMS, but any proposed settlement must be promptly communicated to the Appeals Board.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationGrant of ReconsiderationStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMS
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. Nashville Gas Co.

Plaintiffs John M. Gross and Wayne Adair, employees of South Central Bell Telephone Company, sustained severe burns when a fire erupted in a manhole they were working in. They alleged the fire was caused by leaking natural gas from lines maintained by the defendant, Nashville Gas Company, claiming negligence and strict liability. The trial in Davidson County, Tennessee, in January 1979, resulted in a jury finding both parties negligent and a verdict in favor of Nashville Gas Company, leading to the dismissal of the case. Appellants appealed, raising issues regarding evidence admissibility, jury instructions on remote contributory negligence, strict liability, duty of care, gross negligence, punitive damages, and urging the judicial adoption of comparative negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions, and declined to judicially adopt comparative negligence, suggesting it is a legislative matter. The court found that the evidence did not support a finding of gross negligence or strict liability against the gas company.

Personal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceComparative NegligenceGas LeakManhole FireWorkplace AccidentEvidence AdmissibilityJury InstructionsStrict Liability
References
26
Case No. 04-08-00105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2008

Killam Ranch Properties, Ltd. v. Webb County, Texas

Killam Ranch Properties, Ltd. appealed a trial court order awarding attorney's fees to Webb County, Texas. The dispute arose after Killam Ranch filed a nonsuit in its declaratory judgment action against the County, leading the County to seek attorney's fees under the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Killam Ranch contested the award, arguing the County had abandoned its claim through discovery failures and lacked proper pleading for fees. The appellate court addressed these issues, affirming the trial court's decision. It ruled that the County's claim for attorney's fees survived the nonsuit, its discovery disclosures were timely due to a trial reset, and its general request for fees was sufficient.

Declaratory JudgmentAttorney's FeesNonsuitDiscovery DisputesTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionAffirmative ReliefStatutory InterpretationCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
16
Case No. 04-10-00802-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2012

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd (Appellant/Cross Appellee) v. David Killam (Appellee/Cross Appellant)

Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. appealed the denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, challenging a jury's finding that a disputed portion of San Ygnacio Road was not impliedly dedicated to the public. The Ranch had sought a declaratory judgment to affirm the road's public status. Concurrently, the Killams, as appellees and cross-appellants, contested the trial court's refusal to award attorney's fees. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision, concluding that Callaghan Ranch failed to conclusively prove implied dedication due to disputed evidence. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the denial of attorney's fees, citing that both parties had legitimate interests to pursue.

Implied DedicationDeclaratory JudgmentJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictPublic RoadPrivate RoadAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceProperty RightsTexas Law
References
32
Case No. 03-14-00821-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2014

Ha Duong Nhu and D&H Restaurant Equipment v. Hunan Ranch Corporation

This case is a restricted appeal filed by Duong Nhu Ha and D&H Restaurant Equipment against Hunan Ranch Corporation, challenging a no-answer default judgment. The default judgment, issued by the 201st District Court of Travis County, awarded Hunan Ranch Corporation $38,663.81 in unliquidated damages for breach of contract related to the installation of a commercial wok range, plus $6,693.75 in attorney's fees. Appellants argue that there is error on the face of the record due to the absence of material exhibits, such as the alleged purchase order and sales reports, and the lack of a court reporter's record from the default judgment hearing. They further contend that Hunan Ranch Corporation used an incorrect measure for damages (lost sales instead of lost profits), failed to prove profitability, and did not establish a causal nexus between the alleged breach and the claimed damages. Consequently, Appellants seek to reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the case for a new trial.

Contract DisputeDefault JudgmentRestricted AppealUnliquidated DamagesLost ProfitsLost SalesAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewEvidentiary HearingCourt Reporter Record
References
35
Case No. 2021-03-0523
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2022

Nuchols, William Craig v. Jayell Ranch

The claimant, William Craig Nuchols, suffered a left arm injury while working as a horseback riding guide for Jayell Ranch. The employer contested the claim, asserting Nuchols was an independent contractor and not entitled to workers' compensation benefits. However, the trial court determined Nuchols was an employee at the time of the accident and ordered Jayell Ranch to initiate medical benefits. Furthermore, due to the employer's lack of workers' compensation insurance, the claimant was deemed eligible for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund. The employer appealed this decision, but the Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's order and remanded the case, noting the employer's failure to file a transcript or a brief on appeal.

Employee vs. Independent ContractorWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMedical BenefitsUninsured Employers FundFrivolous AppealBurden of ProofTranscript RequirementAppellate ProcedureHorseback Riding IndustryLeft Arm Injury
References
8
Case No. 11-18-00111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2020

Garrett Martin v. Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd.

Garrett Martin appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd. Martin sought damages for retaliatory discharge under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, alleging he was terminated for filing a workers' compensation claim. Martin sustained a back injury at work and filed a claim two days before his termination. Fasken Oil and Ranch Ltd. argued that Martin was terminated due to unsafe work practices, inability to follow instructions, and untruthfulness regarding the incident. The court reviewed the summary judgment, finding Martin failed to produce sufficient circumstantial evidence for a causal link between his termination and the workers’ compensation claim, and did not rebut Fasken’s non-retaliatory explanation. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Summary JudgmentRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ActCausationCircumstantial EvidenceNo-Evidence MotionEmployment LawTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewAffirmation
References
14
Case No. 2020-06-0216
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2020

De Rosa, Debra v. I & MJ Gross Co.

Debra De Rosa, an employee of I & MJ Gross Co., injured her wrist and subsequently sought additional treatment with a new doctor. She contended that the carrier, Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., failed to offer a panel of physicians or inform her of her right to choose from a list of three doctors. However, I & MJ Gross Co. denied these allegations, asserting that it had twice fulfilled its statutory obligation to offer a physician panel. The Court found the employer's testimony credible regarding the panel offer and noted that Ms. De Rosa accepted treatment from Dr. John Weaver. Dr. Weaver ultimately placed her at maximum medical improvement and stated no further treatment was necessary, leading the Court to deny Ms. De Rosa’s request for additional medical care.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentPhysician PanelCredibility DeterminationWrist InjuryMaximum Medical ImprovementStatutory ObligationEmployee RightsEmployer ResponsibilityMedical Benefits
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 538 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