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. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. 2015-02-0210
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2015

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

The employee, Katherine Perrault, alleged she developed a hiatal hernia, hemorrhoids, and acute appendicitis due to heavy lifting at work. The employer, Gem Care, Inc., denied the claim, asserting a lack of evidence connecting her conditions to the work incident. Following an expedited hearing, the trial court denied temporary disability and medical benefits, concluding the employee failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed this decision, citing inconsistencies in the employee's testimony and medical records, and the absence of evidence meeting the specific requirements for hernia claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Hernia ClaimExpedited HearingMedical Benefits DenialTemporary Disability DenialBurden of Proof StandardWitness Credibility DeferenceInterlocutory Appeal ReviewInjury CausationRectal Bleeding SymptomsHiatal Hernia Requirements
References
4
Case No. W2023-00514-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2024

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

Susan B. Ferkin appealed the dismissal of her petition for judicial review, which sought audio recordings of a third-party's post-conviction hearings from court reporter Katherine Bell under the Tennessee Public Records Act. The circuit court dismissed Ferkin's petition, citing established precedent that such recordings are confidential. On appeal, Ferkin presented several issues, including challenging the precedent and alleging widespread misconduct within the Tennessee judiciary. The Court of Appeals, noting Ferkin's repeated use of disrespectful and contemptuous language towards the judiciary despite prior warnings, struck her briefs in their entirety. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to the violation of appellate rules regarding professional conduct and respect for the court.

Public Records ActAppellate Rules ViolationContempt of CourtPro Se LitigationJudicial ConductDenial of AccessCourt Reporter RecordsProcedural DismissalCase PrecedentRule 9 Sanctions
References
12
Case No. CV-23-1324
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2024

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

Claimant Katherine Shmulsky appealed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning her claim for workers' compensation benefits. Shmulsky alleged injuries, including dysautonomia, from a COVID-19 vaccination she received in December 2020 while employed by Hudson Headwaters Health Network, Inc. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established her claim, the Board reversed, concluding that Shmulsky failed to prove her injuries were causally related to her employment. The Board subsequently denied her application for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that the employer did not mandate the vaccine and there were no repercussions for employees who declined it, thus her injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment.

Workers' CompensationCOVID-19 VaccineCausationEmployment RelationshipAdverse ReactionDysautonomiaBoard ReversalReconsideration DeniedSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 532311
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2021

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Katherine King appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her reduced earnings awards after June 22, 2014. King sustained a work-related back injury in 2006 while employed by the Department of Corrections and concurrently as a waitress and baker, leading to reduced earnings awards based on her cumulative average weekly wage. She ceased working for the Department in 2014 due to an unrelated disability and had not worked since. The Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling that there was no basis to continue awards, as her retirement was unrelated to her disability and she failed to show reattachment to the labor market. The Appellate Division reversed and remitted the matter, finding the Board's reasoning incomplete regarding lost wages from her restaurant job and the need to demonstrate reattachment to the labor market, especially considering the 2017 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w).

Reduced EarningsPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardLabor Market AttachmentConcurrent EmploymentCausally Related Lost WagesDisability RetirementAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00066 [179 AD3d 427]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order finding Jose U. sexually abused his child, Katherine U., and dismissed the appeal from the fact-finding order. The court upheld the use of closed-circuit television for the child's testimony, balancing the father's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being, as contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel was permitted. An affidavit from the child's social worker sufficiently established that in-court testimony would cause emotional harm. Furthermore, Jose U.'s prior criminal convictions for predatory sexual assault, rape, incest, and sexual abuse, involving the child, collaterally estopped him from contesting the abuse allegations in the family court petition.

Child abuseSexual abuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessChild TestimonyClosed-circuit televisionCollateral EstoppelCriminal ConvictionEvidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. 10-05-00017-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2005

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

Dr. A.J. Morris sued Dr. Katherine Blanchette for libel per se following a peer review report by Blanchette that criticized Morris's patient treatment. The trial court granted Blanchette's summary judgment motion. Morris appealed, arguing that genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the statements were protected opinions, libelous per se, or privileged. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that Blanchette's report constituted a constitutionally protected expression of opinion and was not defamatory, especially within the context of the worker's compensation independent review system.

Libel per sePeer ReviewMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentConstitutional ProtectionOpinion vs. FactWorkers' Compensation SystemDefamationHealth & Safety CodeAppellate Decision
References
9
Case No. 01-01-00955-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2003

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

Wausau Underwriters Insurance sought judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) decision awarding death benefits to Katherine Kaus after her husband's death. The central issues were whether the death was a suicide and occurred within the scope of employment. A jury found Mr. Kaus committed suicide, prompting the trial court to set aside the TWCC's award. The appellate court addressed the admissibility of an assistant medical examiner's opinion on suicide, along with death certificates and autopsy reports containing this opinion. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the medical examiner was qualified to provide an expert opinion on the manner of death, and the evidence was admissible even if the initial reasoning for admission was flawed.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSuicideAdmissibility of EvidenceExpert Witness TestimonyMedical ExaminerAutopsy ReportDeath CertificateHearsay ExceptionJudicial Review
References
32
Case No. 14-02-00633-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2004

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This real estate dispute involves Robert C. Reeves's appeal of a summary judgment granted in favor of Memorial Terrace, Ltd., Ede I. Nemeti, Arpad and Katherine Domyan, Spasco, Ltd., and Left BK L.P. Reeves had entered an agreement to purchase land, but the sale did not close. Subsequently, Reeves filed a lawsuit asserting claims for specific performance, rescission, breach of contract, statutory and common law fraud, conspiracy, and deceptive trade practices. The trial court granted the appellees' motions for summary judgment, leading to a take-nothing judgment against Reeves. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that the agreement lacked valid consideration and mutuality of obligation, rendering it unenforceable. Additionally, the court found no evidence of detrimental reliance or damage to support Reeves's fraud, conspiracy, and deceptive trade practices claims. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order cancelling the notice of lis pendens, as the requirements of section 12.008 of the Texas Property Code were not met, affirming the remainder of the judgment as modified.

Real Estate DisputeSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractFraudDeceptive Trade PracticesLack of ConsiderationMutuality of ObligationIllusory PromiseDetrimental RelianceLis Pendens
References
11
Case No. 2-02-284-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2003

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

Charles Marts, a night burner, died of cardiopulmonary arrest. His wife, Margaret Katherine Marts, sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming his death was a compensable occupational disease exacerbated by workplace chemicals. Both the hearing officer and the TWCC Appeals Panel denied the claim. Katherine filed a suit for judicial review, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Transportation Insurance Company (TIC). The appeals court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment, finding no evidence from a qualified medical expert to prove causation, and upheld the striking of bad faith claims.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseCausationExpert Medical TestimonyNo-Evidence MotionAppellate ReviewAsthmaWorkplace EmissionsJudicial Review
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 68 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