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. ADJ2919928
Regular
Mar 09, 2023

STEPHEN MCCARTY vs. FCI CONSTRUCTORS, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Serious and Willful misconduct (S&W) petition filed by the applicant. The employer (FCI) and a third party (FWI) sought reconsideration of an order, arguing the S&W petition was time-barred and that the administrative law judge (WCJ) should have addressed this issue before joinder of additional parties. The Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration, dismissed the reconsideration petitions as non-final, and denied removal. The Board found no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from proceeding with joinder issues before the statute of limitations defense to the S&W petition.

Serious and Willful MisconductPetition for JoinderStatute of LimitationsRemovalReconsiderationNunc Pro Tunc OrderThreshold IssueSubstantive RightIrreparable HarmLabor Code Section 5407
References
9
Case No. ADJ1817132 (VNO 0556434)
Regular
Jun 22, 2012

JESUS MORAN vs. SANTA CLARITA CONCRETE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE CO c/o ESIS

The Appeals Board dismissed ACE American Insurance's Petition for Reconsideration because it was not filed against a final order. However, the Board granted ACE's Petition for Removal, rescinded the order denying joinder, and returned the case to the trial level for a hearing on the joinder issue. This decision provides ACE due process to present its evidence and arguments regarding joinder, and requires notice and an opportunity to be heard for the party ACE seeks to join. The Board's decision does not prejudice the merits of the joinder petition itself.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for JoinderOrder Denying Petition for JoinderOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseDate of InjuryEquitable IndemnityReimbursementDue DiligenceSupplemental Petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ17263528
Regular
Oct 07, 2025

Jessica Hartnett vs. County of Kern, State of California, Department of Corrections

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered a petition for removal filed by defendant SCIF, contesting a joinder order issued by the workers' compensation administrative law judge on October 15, 2024. Defendant claimed the joinder was inappropriate due to a lack of service. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy and found that the petitioner did not demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Consequently, the Board dismissed the Petition for Removal, directing the WCJ to treat it as a petition to set aside the joinder and schedule a hearing to establish a record for determining the joinder's appropriateness.

Petition for RemovalOrder of JoinderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationPetition to Set Aside JoinderContinuing JurisdictionLabor Code Section 5803
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. Greer

This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a libel suit filed by Salem Abraham against Daniel Greer and Fix the Facts Foundation d/b/a AgendaWise. The dismissal occurred under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to consider remaining issues, including journalist privilege, the status of Greer and AgendaWise as journalists, and the constitutionality of Chapters 22 and 27 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals overruled all issues, affirming the trial court's dismissal. It found that Abraham failed to preserve his complaints regarding the trial court's failure to rule on privilege objections and the journalist status, and concluded that the interplay between Chapters 22 and 27 did not unconstitutionally abridge Abraham's common law remedy for defamation under the open courts provision, as discovery was permissible, albeit limited.

LibelDefamationJournalist PrivilegeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 22Anti-SLAPP StatuteOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. 13-14-00381-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Enbridge Pipelines (East Texas) L.P. v. Saratoga Timber Co., Ltd., Batson Corridor, L.P., and Timbervest Partners Texas, L.P.

Appellees, Batson Corridor and Saratoga Timber overly simplify facts, misrepresent facts, and ignore other pertinent facts, as well as make unfounded accusations of some sort of conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest, in an apparent effort to cloud the legal issues pending before this Court. However, none of the issues raised support the trial court’s erroneous dismissal of the underlying condemnation as to either Saratoga Timber or Batson Corridor. Saratoga Timber’s arguments fail to defeat jurisdiction, particularly when those arguments and evidence are properly placed into the underlying chronology of filings and events occurring between the parties. Its’ position that Timbervest holds no interest in the Batson Corridor easement and never acquired the same, and thus has no interest in this proceeding is contrary to longstanding real property law pertaining to conveyances, and is legally and factually incorrect. And, Saratoga Timber’s claim, that Timbervest’s waiver of defective service was moot as well as untimely because it was filed after the trial court granted the plea to the jurisdiction, is untimely raised for the first time on appeal, and is also legally and factually incorrect. Batson Corridor’s arguments likewise fail to defeat jurisdiction. Upon Enbridge’s joinder of Batson Corridor as an additional interested party, the trial court acquired administrative jurisdiction only over Batson Corridor. The trial court’s consideration and grant of Batson Corridor’s prematurely filed plea to the jurisdiction exceeded the scope of the trial court’s administrative condemnation jurisdiction, and must be reversed. Finally, Appellees’ claim of collusion or conspiracy between Enbridge and Appellee Timbervest is unfounded, unsupported by the record, and urged solely in an effort to cloud the issues and portray Enbridge in a less than candid light. The two parties share a common interest in resolving the underlying condemnation and the companion declaratory judgment action correctly and efficiently.

condemnation lawreply briefjurisdictioneminent domainproperty lawreal propertyTexasappealcivil procedurelegal arguments
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. ADJ7469391
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

DANIEL DIAZ NEGRON vs. CLEAR WATER HANDWASH dba MARINA CLASSIC CAR WASH, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Best of California Business Promotions, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was based on an assumed dismissal of their lien that had not actually occurred. The lien claimant failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial and did not provide good cause for their absence. Furthermore, the Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $1,000 against the lien claimant and its representatives for filing a frivolous petition and wasting judicial resources by arguing an issue not supported by the record. The Board is also removing the case on its own motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienNon-Appearance at TrialLien Activation FeeUnconstitutional
References
1
Case No. ADJ4141215 (MON 0288595) ADJ4160601 (MON 0288596) ADJ2249717 (MON 0300098)
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

DOREEN LABOY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND / STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding their argument regarding AMA Guidelines irrelevant due to a prior stipulation to the 1997 Rating Schedule. The WCAB granted removal to issue notices of intention to impose sanctions and award attorney's fees/costs against the defendant and their counsel. This action is based on the defendant's frivolous and bad-faith tactics in raising an issue for the first time on reconsideration that was not previously litigated or argued. The defendant's petition is deemed without merit and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

LABOYDOREENSTATE OF CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTHSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDJOINT FINDINGS AND AWARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONREMOVALNOTICES OF INTENTIONORDER TO PAY EXPENSES
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 11,915 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