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. 10-09-00413-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2010

Ex Parte Servando Castaneda Gonzales

Servando Castaneda Gonzales appealed a trial court’s decision in an underlying writ of habeas corpus proceeding. He subsequently filed a motion with the appellate court, requesting the dismissal of his own appeal. The motion was personally signed by Gonzales. The Tenth Court of Appeals, finding the motion appropriate, dismissed the appeal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a).

Habeas CorpusAppeal DismissedMotion to DismissWrit ProceedingAppellate ProcedureTexas LawCriminal AppealVoluntary DismissalCourt of Appeals
References
1
Case No. ADJ8477952
Regular
Jan 15, 2013

ADAN CASTANEDA, JOAQUINA CASTANEDA vs. CITY OF ROSEMEAD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision awarding death benefits. The Board found that the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) adequately considered all evidence, and the defendant's accusations of partiality were unfounded. The Board affirmed the WCJ's reliance on specific physician reports and the applicant's widow's testimony, which established a causal link between the applicant's industrial injuries and his death. The Board also recommended sanctions against defense counsel for using unprofessional and intemperate language.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdan CastanedaJoaquina CastanedaCity of RosemeadState Compensation Insurance FundADJ8477952Order Denying Reconsiderationsubstantial evidenceWCJReport and Recommendation on Petition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. ADJ10648626
Regular
Apr 27, 2018

LUBIA CASTANEDA vs. ELITE SUBLIMATION, INC., REPUBLIC UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed Lubia Castaneda's petition for reconsideration because the WCJ's decision on venue was an interlocutory procedural issue, not a final order determining substantive rights or liabilities. Therefore, it was not a proper subject for reconsideration. The petition for removal was also denied as Castaneda failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice, irreparable harm, or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory DecisionProcedural IssueEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. ADJ10774955
Regular
Jan 31, 2018

THOMAS CASTANEDA vs. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., TRISTAR

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Thomas Castaneda's Petition for Reconsideration because it was unverified, violating Labor Code section 5902. Notice of this defect was provided by the Workers' Compensation Judge, and the petitioner failed to cure it within a reasonable time. The Board noted that even if considered on its merits, the petition would have been denied. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed.

References
1
Case No. ADJ9667162, ADJ9793109
Regular
Dec 07, 2016

ALMA LOPEZ CASTANEDA vs. FOREVER 21, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE, BROADSPIRE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted reconsideration, on its own motion, of a prior order denying the applicant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Alma Lopez Castaneda vs. Forever 21. This action is taken to allow for further study of the legal and factual issues involved. All subsequent correspondence and filings related to this reconsideration must be submitted directly to the Appeals Board Commissioners in San Francisco, not to district offices or via e-filing. Trial-level documents unrelated to the petition for reconsideration will continue to be filed through EAMS.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationBoard MotionPetition for ReconsiderationDenying PetitionGranting ReconsiderationLegal IssuesFactual IssuesCommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
0
Case No. MON 0333042 MON 0333043
Regular
May 01, 2008

JOSE LUIS CASTANEDA vs. SAMY'S CAMERA, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Jose Luis Castaneda's claim for temporary disability benefits following two work-related injuries from Samy's Camera, Inc. The Appeals Board affirmed a prior award limiting temporary disability to two years from commencement, finding that concurrent injuries result in a concurrent application of the two-year cap under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). This decision aligns with the appellate court's ruling in *Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which held that the 104-week/2-year limitation runs concurrently when independent injuries cause simultaneous temporary disability.

Labor Code section 4656temporary disability indemnitypetition for reconsiderationtwo-year capFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.aggregate disability paymentsconcurrent periodsspecific injurycumulative injuryWCJ
References
1
Case No. ADJ7261546
Regular

MARICELA CASTANEDA vs. HUGHSON NUT COMPANY, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY, TECHNOLOGY COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Maricela Castaneda's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision. The applicant sought benefits for injuries to her left wrist, low back, abdomen, and psyche, but the trial judge limited the compensable injuries to the left wrist and low back. The petition argued that the medical evidence regarding permanent disability and psychological causation was insufficient. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report, which found the applicant's challenges to the medical evidence lacked merit and highlighted issues with the applicant's credibility. The Board also admonished applicant's counsel for a procedural filing error.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationQualified Medical ExaminerPQMEorthopedicpsychologicalcausationsubstantial medical evidencepermanent disabilityapportionment
References
2
Case No. ADJ7745775
Regular
Jun 16, 2015

ENRIQUE CASTANEDA vs. MONTEREY MUSHROOMS, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION For SUPERIOR NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the February 4, 2014 Findings of Fact and awarded further medical treatment for applicant Enrique Castaneda against Monterey Mushrooms, Inc. The WCAB also imposed sanctions of $500.00 against defense counsel Peter R. Nelson and his firm, jointly and severally, for intemperate language used during advocacy. Defense counsel's objection and apology were considered, leading to a reduced sanction amount. The sanctions were justified by the board's need to address the counsel's inappropriate language, which diverted resources.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanctionsIntemperate languageHeat of advocacyDefense counselPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactFurther medical treatmentAward
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Partida v. Castaneda

Petitioner Rodrigo Partida filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas, alleging denial of due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He claimed systematic underrepresentation of Mexican-Americans on the state grand jury that indicted him in Hidalgo County, Texas. The Respondent argued waiver of the claim, but the federal court chose to consider the merits since state courts had done so. While acknowledging a bare prima facie case of disproportion based on historical data, the court found it rebutted. The decision highlighted inaccuracies in the petitioner's statistics and strong circumstantial evidence against discriminatory intent, such as the presence of Mexican-American judges and jury commissioners in a county with a Mexican-American governing majority. Consequently, the court denied Partida's petition, dismissing the cause.

Habeas CorpusGrand Jury DiscriminationMexican-American UnderrepresentationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFourteenth AmendmentRacial DiscriminationJury SelectionWaiver of Constitutional ClaimHidalgo County
References
45
Case No. A-11099
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Castaneda

Plaintiff George L. Long and Northeast National Bank of San Antonio initiated a suit against the Sheriff of Hidalgo County and the First National Bank and Trust Company of Lincoln, Nebraska, seeking to halt the execution sale of a mobile home and claim damages. Long asserted ownership of a 1968 Aristocraft Mobile Home, with the San Antonio Bank holding a security interest, contesting the defendants' attempt to sell it to satisfy a judgment against the previous owners, Walter I. and Vivian L. Black. The trial court initially denied a temporary injunction, leading Long to appeal. The appellate court concluded that the execution writ was invalid as it was issued after Walter I. Black's death, and further, that the Nebraska Bank, an indispensable party, had not been properly served. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, ordering the issuance of a temporary injunction to maintain the status quo until all necessary parties were properly before the court and their rights definitively resolved.

InjunctionExecution SaleMobile HomeOwnership DisputeAdequate Remedy at LawIndispensable PartiesDeceased DebtorWrit of ExecutionVoid SaleTexas Civil Procedure
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 30 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