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

Harris County v. Smith

The Smiths were injured in a 1994 automobile collision with Deputy Sheriff Spurgeon. A jury found Spurgeon's negligence caused the injuries and awarded the Smiths $95,100 in damages. Harris County appealed, challenging the inclusion of 'loss of earning capacity' for Lynn Smith and 'physical impairment' for Erica Smith in the broad-form damages question, arguing insufficient evidence. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred in submitting these specific elements due to lack of evidence. However, it concluded that traditional harm analysis, rather than the 'presumed harm' standard from Crown Life Insurance Co. v. Casteel, applied to erroneously submitted elements of a broad-form damages question. Applying traditional harm analysis, the court found sufficient evidence to support the overall damages awarded to Lynn Smith for medical care, physical pain, and mental anguish, and to Erica Smith for medical care, physical pain, and mental anguish, rendering the errors in submitting the unsupported elements non-reversible. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

NegligenceDamagesJury VerdictBroad-form QuestionsHarm AnalysisPhysical ImpairmentLoss of Earning CapacityMedical CareCausationPre-existing Condition
References
31
Case No. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. ADJ10046418, ADJ10046374, ADJ10046432, ADJ10795308
Regular
Sep 15, 2017

JUAN DELGADO vs. DESERT CONCEPTS MAINTENANCE, PSI, CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS NETWORK, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal. While the Board found the petition to be timely filed, removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be inadequate. Therefore, the Board denied the petition based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJtimelyextraordinary remedysubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedydenial of removal
References
2
Case No. ADJ10872040
Regular
Nov 27, 2017

MELL, CHRISTIAN vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Christian Mell's Petition for Removal in case ADJ10872040. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that Mell failed to demonstrate such harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied based on the WCJ's analysis and the record.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDepartment of Corrections and RehabilitationState Compensation Insurance FundADJ10872040administrative law judgesubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedy
References
2
Case No. ADJ13700881
Regular
Sep 19, 2022

ROSARIO CHAVEZ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES INC, ACE AMERICAN C/O CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the employer's (Barrett Business Services Inc.) Petition for Removal in the case of Rosario Chavez. The WCAB found that removal is an extraordinary remedy, only granted upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that reconsideration cannot remedy. Based on the WCJ's analysis, the WCAB was not persuaded that such prejudice or harm existed. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyDenial of PetitionFinal DecisionAdverse Ruling
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. NO. 14-03-00622-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tracy Dawn Allen v. Traci Connolly D/ba/ Traci Connolly Insurance, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

In this summary-judgment case, the court addresses whether there was a foreseeable risk of harm giving rise to an employer's duty to protect employees from the criminal acts of third parties. Appellant Tracy Dawn Allen challenges the trial court's summary judgment in favor of her former employer, appellee Traci Connolly d/b/a Traci Connolly Insurance. Allen, an employee, was robbed and sexually assaulted by an armed assailant at work. She alleged Connolly failed to provide a safe workplace and proper training for a security system. Connolly successfully argued in the trial court that no foreseeable risk of harm existed, and thus, no duty was owed under the Timberwalk standard. The appellate court, applying the Timberwalk analysis, found insufficient evidence of prior similar criminal activity to establish foreseeability of a violent act. Consequently, the court concluded that Allen's negligence claim against Connolly fails and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Summary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsForeseeability of HarmNegligenceSafe WorkplaceSexual AssaultAggravated RobberySecurity System
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkup v. American International Adjustment Co.

The plaintiff, a bricklayer, sustained a serious back injury and subsequently sued his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier and its employees, alleging improper denial of benefits, lack of medical treatment, and breach of good faith. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy, but the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, denied their motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted. The appellate court found the Workers’ Compensation Law to be the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional harm.

Workers' Compensation LawBreach of Insurance ContractIntentional Infliction of Emotional HarmExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilityWork-Related InjuryMedical BenefitsSanctions
References
1
Case No. ADJ4430885
Regular
Jul 15, 2025

MICHELE EARLEY vs. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered and denied a Petition for Removal filed by the petitioner. The Board reiterated that removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result and reconsideration is an inadequate remedy. Based on the WCJ's analysis, the Board was not convinced that these conditions were met, leading to the denial of the petition.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadministrative law judgeWCJdenial of removalextraordinary remedy
References
2
Case No. ADJ8195812
Regular
Nov 20, 2017

MONICA LOPEZ vs. STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND; administered by ACCLAMATION INSURANCE MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only when substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result and reconsideration will not be an adequate remedy. The Board found the petitioner failed to demonstrate these conditions based on the WCJ's analysis of the merits. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJ reportsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationextraordinary remedyCortez v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Kleemann v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 2,446 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