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. 2015-01-0006
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2015

Langford, Jordan v. Cleveland Tent & Party Rentals

Jordan Langford sought an interlocutory order for medical and temporary disability benefits after sustaining multiple injuries in a work-related truck accident on October 13, 2014. The employer, Scott Rymer, d/b/a Cleveland Tent and Party Rentals/Party Time Rentals, was uninsured and disputed the claim, asserting Mr. Langford was an independent contractor and the injury occurred during a deviation from business. However, the Court found that Rymer employed more than five individuals, making it subject to workers' compensation law, and that Mr. Langford was an employee acting within the scope of his employment. Consequently, the Court granted the interlocutory order, entitling Mr. Langford to medical treatment, including care from Dr. Brett Sanders for his fractured ankle, and temporary disability benefits for the period from October 14, 2014, to April 1, 2015.

expedited hearinginterlocutory ordermedical benefitstemporary disabilityemployee statusindependent contractorscope of employmentautomobile accidentankle fracturesurgery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keene Corp. v. Williams Bailey & Wesner, L.L.P. (In Re Keene Corp.)

Keene Corporation, in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, filed an adversary proceeding against 27 law firms, alleging they forced Keene into bankruptcy through fraudulent asbestos-related tort claims. The defendant law firms moved to withdraw the reference of this proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court, citing complex federal statutes (Antitrust and RICO) and a jury trial right. Defendant Levy Phillips & Konigsberg also appealed an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss a civil contempt proceeding. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy, denied the defendants' motion to withdraw the reference, deeming it premature, and dismissed LPK's interlocutory appeal, affirming the bankruptcy court's ruling on contempt. The court determined the adversary proceeding was non-core and did not warrant mandatory or discretionary withdrawal at this early stage.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingWithdrawal of ReferenceInterlocutory AppealCivil ContemptAntitrust LawRICO ActAsbestos LitigationFederal JurisdictionCore vs. Non-Core Proceedings
References
25
Case No. 2014-04-0012
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2015

Thompsen, Jason v. Concrete Solutions

This interlocutory appeal arises from a workers' compensation claim where Jason Thompsen, a concrete worker, sustained a fractured ankle. The employer, Concrete Solutions, disputed the claim, arguing Thompsen was an independent contractor. The trial court determined Thompsen was an employee entitled to medical benefits but not temporary disability benefits. On appeal, Concrete Solutions challenged the lack of an evidentiary hearing and the finding of an employer-employee relationship. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that an evidentiary hearing was not mandatory for an interlocutory order and that sufficient evidence supported the conclusion that Thompsen was an employee under the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Act, thus entitling him to necessary medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorAnkle FractureMedical BenefitsInterlocutory AppealEvidentiary HearingDue ProcessRight to ControlStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. ADJ8204664
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

MARIA MUNOZ vs. FLOREZ FAMILY, INC. dba McDONALD'S RESTAURANT

This case involves a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an interlocutory order by a WCJ regarding the proper selection of a medical panel. The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration, finding that interlocutory orders are not subject to reconsideration. Additionally, the Board granted removal on its own motion due to the defense attorney's failure to respond to a notice of intent to impose sanctions. Consequently, the defense attorney was ordered to pay a $100 sanction to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsDefense AttorneyFindings and AwardFindings and OrderLabor Code section 4062.2Labor Code section 5900Interlocutory OrderRemoval
References
8
Case No. 03-99-00766-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2000

Henry Schein, Inc. Easy Dental Systems, Inc. And Dentisoft, Inc. v. Shelly E. Stromboe, D.D.S. Alan B. Helig, D.D.S. Bart Presti, D.D.S. Kelly Presti And Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S. on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated

This is an interlocutory appeal from a trial court order certifying a class action against Henry Schein, Inc., Easy Dental Systems, Inc., and Dentisoft, Inc. The appellees, a group of dentists, allege defects in dental office management software, misrepresentations about technical support, and unsolicited software billing. The appellants contended that the trial court abused its discretion in certifying the class due to failures to satisfy prerequisites under Rule 42 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, finding that common issues predominated over individual issues, and the class representatives met typicality and adequacy requirements, and Texas law was properly applied.

Class ActionInterlocutory AppealSoftware DefectsBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyFraudulent MisrepresentationDeceptive Trade Practices ActPromissory EstoppelClass CertificationPredominance of Common Issues
References
33
Case No. ADJ6913723
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

ZACHARY GRAM vs. CITY OF WALNUT CREEK

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the order changing venue was an interlocutory procedural order, not a final decision on substantive rights or liabilities. The Board then granted removal on its own motion to clarify the record and resolve conflicting procedural orders regarding the venue change. Specifically, the Board vacated prior orders, including an order granting a venue change and a subsequent order rescinding it. The matter is returned to the trial level for a determination on the defendant's request for a venue change.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalReconsiderationVenueLabor Code Section 5310Interlocutory OrderProcedural OrderSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmRescind
References
7
Case No. ADJ4432553
Regular
May 06, 2014

MARTIN ZAVALA vs. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHCARE PARTNERS, QBC, DAVID BERNS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by Martin Zavala. The WCAB clarified that reconsideration can only be sought for final orders that determine substantive rights or liabilities. Interlocutory procedural orders, such as those concerning evidence, discovery, or trial settings, are not final orders and therefore not subject to reconsideration. Consequently, Zavala's petition, likely challenging such an interlocutory order, was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationInterlocutory OrdersFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityPre-trial OrdersEvidenceDiscoveryVenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American National Insurance Co. v. Cannon

Plaintiffs, former insurance agents Frank E. Cannon II, Clifton Mark Grayless, Deborah Glenn, and Robert Westover, filed a class action against American National Insurance Company (ANICO) and American National Property and Casualty Company (ANPAC). The plaintiffs alleged fraud, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of consumer protection laws, specifically challenging non-compete provisions and advance payment repayment obligations in their agent agreements. The trial court certified two classes related to these claims. On interlocutory appeal, the appellate court reviewed the class certification order, determining whether common issues predominated over individual ones, as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42. The court found that individual determinations were necessary for the reasonableness of non-compete clauses and for assessing reliance on oral representations regarding advance payments. Therefore, the appellate court concluded that the class certification requirements were not satisfied and reversed the trial court’s order, remanding the case for proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Class ActionClass CertificationInterlocutory AppealNon-Compete ClausesAgent AgreementsAdvance PaymentsDeclaratory JudgmentTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 42Predominance of Individual IssuesFraud
References
20
Case No. ADJ7111052
Regular
Dec 21, 2012

MARTHA BURTON vs. PARADISE BAKERS & CAFÉ, INC., TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Martha Burton's Petition for Reconsideration. The WCAB determined that reconsideration can only be sought for final orders, not interlocutory procedural orders. Burton challenged a Notice of Intention (NIT) Re: Sanctions, which the WCAB classified as an interlocutory order that does not resolve substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, the petition was dismissed as it was not a final order subject to reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderSubstantive RightsLiabilitiesAdministrative Law JudgePre-trial OrdersNotice of Intention
References
5
Case No. SAU10030321
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

BRIAN DUARTE vs. ALL ABOUT PAINT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Brian Duarte's petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a "final" order, decision, or award. A final order must determine a substantive right or liability, or a fundamental threshold issue, not interlocutory procedural or evidentiary matters. The WCJ's order consolidating cases, designating a master file, staying liens, and noticing a hearing was deemed an interlocutory procedural order and therefore not subject to reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary DecisionOrder of ConsolidationDesignation of Master File
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 28,810 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