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. M2012-02423-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Plaintiff Captain Larry D. Williams was discharged by the City of Burns after reporting his police chief, Jerry D. Sumerour, Jr., for pressuring him into illegally fixing a traffic ticket for the chief's stepson. The defendant municipality claimed Williams was terminated for violating the chain of command and undermining the chief's authority. The Tennessee Supreme Court found that disciplining Williams for reporting illegal activity to the mayor was an admission of retaliatory motive and that other reasons for termination were pretextual. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, concluding Williams was discharged solely in retaliation for refusing to participate in and remain silent about illegal activities under the Tennessee Public Protection Act.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionIllegal Ticket FixingChain of Command ViolationPolice Officer TerminationEmployment At-WillPublic Policy ExceptionPretext for RetaliationCausation in Employment LawMunicipal Employment
References
78
Case No. 02-14-00191-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2015

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

Appellants Fix It Today, LLC and Banatex, LLC (collectively, FIT Finance) appealed a judgment in favor of Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (SCUSA). FIT Finance operated a scheme to make loans for emergency auto repair, claiming superior worker's liens over SCUSA's perfected purchase money security interests. SCUSA sued for conversion, tortious interference, damages under the Texas Theft Liability Act, conspiracy, and sought a declaratory judgment. The trial court initially ruled for SCUSA, but the Court of Appeals reversed the conspiracy claim, entering a take-nothing judgment. Additionally, the conversion, tortious interference, Texas Theft Liability Act claims, and the attorney's fee award were reversed and remanded for a new trial. The declaratory judgment portion of the trial court's decision was affirmed.

Texas LawCivil ConspiracyConversionTortious InterferenceTexas Theft Liability ActWorkers' Lien StatuteDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceDamages Calculation
References
29
Case No. 1:16-cv-09901-JSR
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiffs, consisting of direct purchasers and end-payors, filed nationwide class actions against multiple pharmaceutical companies alleging an illegal conspiracy to fix the price of the generic drug propranolol. Presiding Judge JED S. RAKOFF, of the Southern District of New York, denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the claims brought under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, finding sufficient factual allegations to infer a price-fixing conspiracy. However, the court dismissed certain state law antitrust and consumer protection claims due to issues of standing or failure to adequately state a claim under specific state statutes. Conversely, the defendants' motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claims was denied. The court also reaffirmed its prior ruling denying dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, asserting that nationwide service of process under the Sherman Act does not violate Fifth Amendment due process given the defendants' national contacts and the efficiency of a joint trial.

AntitrustPrice-fixingGeneric DrugsPropranololClass ActionSherman ActPersonal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsConsumer ProtectionUnjust Enrichment
References
61
Case No. VNO 504551
Regular
Mar 12, 2008

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

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board rescinded an Order Approving Compromise and Release because the defendant, an illegally uninsured employer, claimed he was not properly served and thus denied participation in the proceedings. Applicant's attorney failed to provide proof of service as ordered by the Board, leading to the conclusion that the defendant's petition for reconsideration was timely. The case is now returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the defendant's objections, including whether the applicant was an employee or independent contractor.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundProof of ServiceIndependent ContractorNotice of IntentionPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessRescinded Order
References
1
Case No. ADJ2114868 (LAO 0878203) ADJ3881314 (LAO 0878204) ADJ4493553 (LAO 0861544)
Regular
Aug 23, 2010

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration and granted the applicant's petition. The employer was found to have illegally discriminated against the applicant by filing a retaliatory civil complaint, violating Labor Code section 132a(1). The applicant was denied compensation for her claimed industrial injuries but was awarded costs and attorney's fees related to the discrimination claim. The Board amended the findings to specifically cite subdivision (1) of section 132a, removing any reference to subdivision (3).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardApplicantDefendantPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings Award and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeCumulative TraumaSpecific Industrial InjuryLabor Code Section 132aDiscrimination
References
0
Case No. ADJ6540543
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves Christopher Toms, an applicant injured while employed as a truck driver by Beeline Transportation, an illegally uninsured entity. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a finding that Kiewit Pacific Company, permissibly self-insured, was a dual employer. The Board rescinded the prior award, finding that Kiewit was a contracting party who engaged Beeline as an independent contractor. No statutory basis existed to deem Toms an employee of Kiewit, therefore Kiewit is not liable for workers' compensation benefits.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardChristopher TomsMarvin Lee WeatherbeeBeeline TransportationKiewit Pacific Companyillegally uninsuredpermissibly self-insureddual employersultimate hirerjoint and severally liable
References
2
Case No. 03-08-00226-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2008

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

Appellants, including PODER and neighborhood planning teams, challenged the City of Austin's decision to relocate its animal shelter. They contended that the City violated Article X of the Austin City Charter by not including the project in its comprehensive plan and that the city council violated the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) regarding its March 8, 2007 meeting. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding that the animal shelter relocation was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Neighborhood Plan, and that the city council's actions regarding budget allocations were properly noticed under TOMA. Therefore, no violation of the city charter or TOMA occurred.

Austin City CharterTexas Open Meetings Act (TOMA)Summary JudgmentAnimal Shelter RelocationComprehensive PlanningNeighborhood PlanningZoning RegulationsGovernmental ImmunityAppellate ReviewLand Use Policy
References
19
Case No. 03-97-00329-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 1997

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

Ray L. Ender sued the City of Austin, alleging his transfer from the Motorcycle Division to the Patrol Division violated the Whistleblower Act. Ender claimed the transfer was in retaliation for reporting an alleged illegal ticket-writing quota. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, citing Ender's inability to prove a causal link. The Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding that the City did not conclusively negate the causation element or Ender's good-faith belief. The case was remanded for a trial on the merits.

Whistleblower ActRetaliatory TransferSummary Judgment ReversalCausation DisputeGood Faith BeliefPublic Employee RightsPolice MisconductTicket QuotasEmployment LawTexas Appeals Court
References
12
Case No. M2012-02423-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Larry D. Williams, a police captain, sued the City of Burns for retaliatory discharge under the Tennessee Public Protection Act (Whistleblower Act). Williams alleged he was fired for refusing to "fix" a traffic ticket for the police chief's stepson and for reporting the incident to the mayor. The City claimed he was terminated for violating the chain of command and undermining the chief's authority. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the City's reasons were pretextual and that Williams was discharged solely in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct. The case was remanded for further proceedings on damages for Williams.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ActTennessee Public Protection ActIllegal ActivitiesTicket FixingChain of Command ViolationPolice MisconductEmployment LawPretext for RetaliationCausation
References
84
Case No. ADJ3545880 (LBO 0296539)
Regular
Feb 23, 2010

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

In Pappin v. United Airlines, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration, affirming a finding of illegal discrimination under Labor Code section 132a. The employer argued the applicant's termination was for legitimate business reasons, not due to her psyche injury. However, the Board found evidence of disparate treatment where another employee with similar ticketing infractions, who had not filed a workers' compensation claim, was not terminated. The Board concluded that the employer's inconsistent rule enforcement and awareness of the applicant's injury claim supported the finding that she was singled out for disadvantageous treatment due to her industrial injury.

Labor Code section 132apsyche injurytemporary total disabilityRoldaStockmanprima facie casediscriminatory personnel actiondisparate treatmentindustrial injurytermination
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 596 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