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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This judicial opinion by Rodenbeck, J. addresses the modification of a temporary injunction order. The judge found that the fourth paragraph of the injunction, which broadly restrained the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America from 'in any way' interfering with the plaintiffs' business, was too encompassing. The language is to be refined to specify interference 'by any of the acts or things herein restrained' to permit lawful union activities, such as striking, which are considered legal rights. However, the rest of the injunction, prohibiting specific actions like assault, intimidation, loitering, using abusive names, publishing false statements, and inducing contract breaches, was upheld as reasonable. The court underscored that while labor organizations can use lawful means to advance their members' interests, they cannot conspire or act solely to harm others or engage in activities that could lead to a breach of public peace or interfere with existing contracts.

InjunctionLabor DisputeStrikeCoercionIntimidationPicketingBoycottingContract InterferencePublic PeaceUnion Rights
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

C. B. Stansfield, a longshoreman, sustained a left shoulder injury in 1938 while working for Lykes Bros. Steamship Company, leading to an initial workers' compensation award in 1939 for 15% permanent partial disability. The Deputy Commissioner later modified this award in February 1941, granting additional compensation, citing a "mistake in a determination of fact" after discovering that Stansfield's dislocated clavicle caused pressure on his trachea, a condition not initially known. Lykes Bros. Steamship Company sought judicial review to enjoin the enforcement of this modified award. Judge Kennerly of the District Court found that Stansfield had withheld information regarding his breathing issues from the Deputy Commissioner during the initial proceedings. Consequently, the court ruled that an employee cannot lawfully obtain a modification under Section 922 by withholding material facts, thus granting Lykes Bros. Steamship Company its decree enjoining the enforcement of the February 1, 1941, award.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPermanent Partial DisabilityDislocated ClavicleMedical EvidenceMistake of FactJudicial ReviewInjunctionGalveston, TexasWorkers' CompensationCompensation Award
References
0
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

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

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 05-16-00784-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2018

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The appellant, Tonya Parks and Parks Realty Firm, LLC, files a motion for en banc reconsideration and modification of the Fifth District Court of Appeals' May 3, 2018, memorandum opinion which dismissed their appeal. The appellant contends the appellate court erred by dismissing the appeal and affirming the trial court's decision, arguing that the original settlement agreement was coerced and made under duress due to judicial misconduct, conflicts of interest, and misrepresentation of civil procedure rules. The motion details alleged improprieties by trial court judges (Judge Sally Montgomery, Judge Ted Akin) and defense attorneys, including ex parte communications, false statements about legal procedures, and an unsafe court environment. The appellant seeks to reverse the lower court's findings and orders, including the dismissal of their claims against Affiliated Bank and the Campbells, and to obtain a fair trial and damages for defamation and other harms.

Appellate ProcedureMotion for ReconsiderationJudicial MisconductCoercion and DuressRule 11 AgreementTexas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA)Conflict of InterestLegal EthicsDefamationDismissal of Appeal
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The plaintiffs appealed an order from Queens County, dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). This law requires either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of a settlement to avoid forfeiture of future workers' compensation benefits. While judicial approval can be sought beyond the three-month period if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the party's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found the over one-year delay in seeking approval was attributable to the plaintiffs' own fault or neglect. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ApprovalSettlementNunc Pro TuncDelay in ApplicationCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionForfeiture of Benefits
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01077
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

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

This disciplinary proceeding concerns attorney Alan Michael Simon, who was previously removed from his judicial position by the New York Court of Appeals for extensive judicial misconduct. The misconduct included bullying, ethnic smearing, poor temperament, engaging in a physical altercation, repeatedly threatening officials with contempt without cause, and improperly interfering in a political election. The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District brought three charges of professional misconduct against Simon, alleging conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation. The court found the charges sustained under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given the prior findings by the Court of Appeals. Despite Simon's arguments for mitigation, including his good faith and election as mayor, the court deemed his actions "truly egregious" and noted his continued lack of insight. Consequently, Alan Michael Simon was disbarred, effective immediately.

Attorney DisciplineJudicial MisconductDisbarmentProfessional MisconductCollateral EstoppelGrievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionRules of Professional ConductEthical ViolationsAttorney and Counselor-at-Law
References
4
Case No. 09-19-00250-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2021

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

Melinda Herrera appealed a trial court's take-nothing judgment on her claims against Wendell Legacy Homes, LLC. Herrera had filed counterclaims for breach of contract and fraud in a real estate transaction, alleging that Wendell Homes failed to timely close on a home, return earnest money, and made false representations. Wendell Homes had also sought damages under promissory estoppel and quantum meruit for costs incurred in making ADA modifications requested by Herrera. The jury found that Wendell Homes breached the contract and committed fraud by false promise, but awarded Herrera zero damages and zero attorney's fees. The jury also found that Herrera promised to pay for ADA modifications, which Wendell Homes relied upon, but awarded Wendell Homes zero for this claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that some evidence supported the jury's findings of zero damages for Herrera's claims, particularly given evidence that the $50,000 paid by Herrera was used for modifications and their reversal. The court also upheld the zero attorney's fees, ruling that Herrera's attorney's affidavit was conclusory and that Herrera was not a 'prevailing party' as she received no meaningful judicial relief.

Real Estate FraudBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelQuantum MeruitDamagesAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewJury VerdictTake-Nothing JudgmentTexas Law
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Justice Martoche dissents from an order concerning a child custody modification. The mother sought to change the existing custody arrangement, established in 2005, which granted primary physical custody to the father. Her petitions in 2006 and 2011 alleged the child suffered emotional difficulties and expressed a strong desire to live with her. Family Court dismissed the 2011 petition, concluding the mother failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances and that the child lacked the maturity to make a wise custody choice. Martoche, J. argued that the lower court's dismissal should be affirmed, emphasizing the importance of stability in custody arrangements, the child's history of anxiety, and the absence of expert testimony to warrant a modification, thereby upholding the original determination that it was in the child's best interest to reside with the father.

Child CustodyChild's PreferenceChange in CircumstancesParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawDissenting OpinionPsychological EvaluationAdjustment DisorderEmotional Distress
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1994

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

Respondent appealed a Family Court order dismissing his application to reduce child support payments from $60 to $25 per week, citing a job loss and reduced income. The petitioner had also filed a violation petition seeking an increase in child support. The Hearing Examiner and Family Court found insufficient grounds for modification, concluding that respondent had an imputed earning capacity as a carpenter/construction worker. The court found respondent delinquent in payments, attempted to conceal employment, and failed to seek unemployment benefits, leading to a discounting of his claims. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, stating that respondent failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a downward modification.

Child SupportSupport ModificationImputed IncomeArrearagesConcealment of IncomeUnemployment BenefitsFamily LawAppealFinancial DisclosureDelinquent Payments
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,222 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