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. 2015-2418 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Remedial Med. Care, P.C. v. Park Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, Park Insurance Co., sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint filed by Remedial Medical Care, P.C., as assignee of Thomas Brown. The Civil Court initially denied the motion but found that the defendant had established timely mailing of denials. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendant for a bill of services rendered on August 23, 2012, as it was paid according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. However, for the remaining bills, the defendant failed to prove timely mailing of IME scheduling letters, thus failing to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled or that the assignor failed to appear. Therefore, the denial of summary judgment for the remaining claims was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Timely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermCivil CourtDenial of ClaimFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Midland Central Appraisal District v. Plains Marketing, L.P.

This ad valorem tax suit involves Plains Marketing's appeal of tax assessments on crude oil inventory in Midland County. The Midland Central Appraisal District and Appraisal Review Board challenged the trial court's jurisdiction, arguing Plains failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The core legal question revolves around whether failure to exhaust administrative remedies constitutes a jurisdictional bar to a taxpayer's appeal, especially in light of the Texas Supreme Court's Kazi decision. The court clarified that when an administrative body, like the appraisal review board, is vested with initial fact-finding responsibility for issues such as property exemptions or appraisals, the exhaustion of administrative remedies is indeed a jurisdictional requirement. However, the court found that Plains did exhaust its administrative remedies because, despite inadequate protest notices, the Interstate Commerce Clause exemption issue was thoroughly discussed, debated, and determined by the Appraisal Review Board during the administrative hearing. Consequently, the trial court was deemed to have subject-matter jurisdiction, and its judgment was affirmed.

Ad Valorem TaxTax AppealAdministrative RemediesJurisdictionExhaustion DoctrineInterstate Commerce ClauseTexas Property Tax CodeAppraisal Review BoardSubject-Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory Appeal
References
36
Case No. ADJ9606608, ADJ9606605
Regular
Nov 27, 2017

Elsa Cordon vs. Renaissance Los Angeles Hotel Airport, Marriott Claims Services

The Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding it an extraordinary remedy not warranted here. The defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from denial, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Specifically, the applicant's primary treating physician was stipulated, and no evidence showed a subsequent establishment of care with a different physician. The defendant retains other available legal remedies.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationQualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical-Legal EvaluatorAdmissibilityFinal Decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ7932962; ADJ7932963; ADJ11544304
Regular
Dec 12, 2019

APRIL TORRES vs. ASHLEY FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, deeming it an extraordinary remedy not warranted in this case. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result from denying removal, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. The defendant's contention of abuse of discretion by the WCJ for not striking amended applications was rejected, as objections to these amendments remain available for trial. The defendant's claim of having no other remedy was also refuted, with the Board suggesting filing a new Declaration of Readiness to Proceed to Trial on all issues.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAshley Furniture IndustriesZurich American InsuranceApril TorresADJ7932962ADJ7932963ADJ11544304WCJMinute Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Gulf Exploration, LLC

The Court clarifies when mandamus relief is available for orders compelling arbitration, generally finding it unavailable for such orders when the underlying case is merely stayed, not dismissed. The Court emphasizes that delay and expense alone do not make a final appeal inadequate. While acknowledging that an appeal might be inadequate in rare cases where legislative mandates conflict, this case presents no such conflict. The Court conditionally grants the petition for writ of mandamus, directing the court of appeals to vacate its judgment and reinstate the order compelling arbitration, as Great Western has not shown its appellate remedy following arbitration is inadequate.

MandamusArbitration LawOil and Gas DisputeFederal Arbitration ActTexas Arbitration ActAppellate ProcedureInterlocutory OrdersFinal JudgmentsStay of ProceedingsCase Dismissal
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero Toro v. Northstar Demolition

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hector Garza v. Zachry Construction Corporation, Zachry Industrial, Inc., Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez

Hector Garza, a DuPont operator, was injured in a railcar accident involving Zachry Construction Corp. employees, Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez. Garza received workers' compensation benefits from DuPont and subsequently sued Zachry, Morales, and Rodriguez for negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Garza's claims were barred by the workers' compensation exclusive remedy under Texas Labor Code section 408.001, which applies to subcontractors via section 406.128. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment. On appeal, Garza argued that Zachry's employees were not DuPont's "deemed employees" for exclusive remedy purposes and that applying the bar violated the Texas Constitution's open courts provision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the contract between DuPont and Zachry did not negate the "deemed employer" status for workers' compensation purposes and that the workers' compensation benefits constituted an adequate quid pro quo for the relinquishment of common-law claims, thus not violating the open courts guarantee.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityExclusive Remedy BarSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Open Courts ProvisionLabor Code InterpretationSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimsDeemed Employer StatusFellow Employee DoctrineContractual Agreement
References
19
Case No. ADJ10650148, ADJ10650276
Regular
Sep 25, 2017

MEIMY AWAD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/USC MEDICAL CENTER, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's Petition for Removal. Removal is an extraordinary remedy that is rarely granted, requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate such harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationWCJ reportextraordinary remedyADJ10650148ADJ10650276Meimy Awad
References
2
Case No. ADJ8786339
Regular
Aug 01, 2017

JEROME ANCRUM vs. WILLIAM TRANSPORTATION, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, AIG

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jerome Ancrum's Petition for Removal in Case No. ADJ8786339. The Board found that Ancrum failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, removal, an extraordinary remedy, was not granted. The Board adopted and incorporated the WCJ's report in its decision.

Petition for RemovalExtraordinary RemedySubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportAdopt and IncorporateDeniedAppeals BoardWorkers' Compensation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,651 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