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. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

KANON MONKIEWICZ vs. RM STORE FIXTURES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued a Notice of Intention to find that Labor Code section 4903.8(a) does not preclude awards to lien claimants Rx Funding Solutions, LLC and PharmaFinance, LLC. This is because the 2014 amendments to section 4903.8(a)(2) specify that it does not apply to assignments completed prior to January 1, 2013. Both of the lien claimants' assignments were made before this date, thus exempting them from the preclusion. The WCAB is amending its previous order and returning the case to the trial level for further proceedings on the merits of the liens.

Labor Code 4903.8Lien claimantsAssignment of receivablesCessation of businessPharmacy lienMedical lienSB 863AB 2732Prospective vs. retrospective applicationWCAB rules
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dugandzic v. New York City School Construction Authority

Mirolsav Dugandzic, a painter, sued multiple defendants, including the NYCSCA, Trataros Construction, and Crowe Construction, after slipping on paint remover at Fort Hamilton High School in 1992. He alleged negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), and Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d). The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the accident was due to his work, they lacked notice of a dangerous condition, and no Labor Law violation. The court found the motions timely and dismissed the Labor Law section 241(6) claim, as the Industrial Code section 23-1.7(d) was deemed inapplicable to the plaintiff's self-created slippery condition. However, the court denied the dismissal of the Labor Law section 200 claim against some defendants, citing a factual dispute over supervisory control. The City's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims against it due to a lack of evidence of its supervision or control.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetySummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimConstruction Site AccidentSlippery FloorEmployer LiabilitySupervisory ControlHazardous Materials
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nagel v. D & R REALTY CORP.

Bruce Nagel, an elevator safety inspector, suffered injuries after slipping on oil during a two-year safety test. He and his wife sued D & R Realty Corp., the building owner, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), particularly Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d). The claims under §§ 200 and 240 (1) were withdrawn. Both the Supreme Court and the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to the defendant, ruling Nagel's work was routine maintenance, not construction, demolition, or excavation under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Labor Law § 241 (6) protections do not extend to maintenance work outside the construction context.

Elevator accidentLabor LawSection 241(6)Routine maintenanceConstruction workDemolition workExcavation workIndustrial CodeSafety inspectionBuilding owner liability
References
6
Case No. 2018-03-0237
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2019

Travis, Fred v. Carter Express, Inc.

Fred Travis, II, an employee, suffered a right shoulder injury while working for Carter Express, Inc. Carter denied his claim and failed to timely initiate benefits, arguing an Indiana forum-selection clause applied and that Travis's injury description was inconsistent. The case was remanded from the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board to reconsider attorney's fees under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-226(d)(1)(b). The Court found Carter's failure to initiate benefits was incorrect, erroneous, and inconsistent with the law, as the forum-selection clause was void and Travis did not elect Indiana remedies. Considering the 'extremely limited circumstances' framework from Thompson v. Comcast Corp., the Court concluded that Carter's delay without an expert opinion to rebut medical evidence justified the award of attorney's fees. The Court granted Mr. Travis’s request for attorney’s fees totaling $28,244.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesExpedited HearingRemandJurisdictionForum-Selection ClauseMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsEmployer LiabilityTennessee Law
References
4
Case No. 03-03-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2003

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., D/B/A Jeanne N. Taylor D.D.S., Individually, and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. State Farm Lloyds, Inc.

Jeanne N. Taylor, D.D.S., appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of State Farm Lloyds, Inc. Taylor had sued State Farm, alleging that the insurer violated the Texas Insurance Code by issuing her business a multi-peril insurance policy with "hired and non-owned auto liability" coverage without mandatory personal injury protection (PIP) or uninsured/underinsured motorist (UM/UIM) coverage. The Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that hired and non-owned auto liability insurance is distinct from "auto liability insurance" as defined in Article 5, Subchapter A of the Texas Insurance Code. The court further concluded that the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) had the authority under Article 5.02 to regulate such policies under other rating laws, thus making PIP and UM/UIM coverage not mandatory for Taylor's specific policy.

Insurance LawMulti-peril PolicyHired and Non-Owned Auto LiabilityPersonal Injury Protection (PIP)Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist (UM/UIM)Texas Insurance CodeStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Remedies Exhaustion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whiteco Metrocom, Inc. v. Texas Utilities Electric Co.

Texas Utilities Electric Company (TU Electric) sued Metrocom, Inc. d/b/a Whi-teco, and Whiteco Industries, Inc. d/b/a Whiteco (Whiteco) for indemnification of costs incurred after a Whiteco employee was injured by a high-voltage power line. Whiteco appealed a summary judgment granted to TU Electric, claiming immunity under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, Labor Code section 417.004. The court considered whether this immunity statute precluded TU Electric's right to indemnification under Health and Safety Code section 752.008, which addresses liability for contact with electrical power lines. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the immunity statute does not apply to a suit for indemnity arising from a breach of the statutory duty imposed by the health and safety code.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationStatutory DutyHigh Voltage Power LineSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityHealth and Safety CodeLabor CodeCode Construction ActStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 08-04-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2005

W. E. Stephens MFG. Co. v. Howard Goldberg, in His Individual Capacity and D/B/A Supreme Laundry and D & G Investment Company

W.E. Stephens Manufacturing Company (Stephens) appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Howard Goldberg, d/b/a Supreme Laundry, and D & G Investment Company (D & G). Stephens, a garment manufacturer, contracted with Tony Flores to assemble and finish garments. Flores sub-contracted the laundering to D & G. When Flores failed to pay D & G, D & G refused to release garments belonging to Stephens, asserting a lien. Stephens sued D & G for conversion and breach of a bailment contract. D & G claimed a constitutional and statutory lien. The trial court granted summary judgment for D & G. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the garment lien under Section 70.002 of the Texas Property Code did not apply as D & G had returned multiple lots of garments prior to payment, and the contract specified a future time of payment.

Summary JudgmentConversionBailment ContractGarment LienPossessory LienTexas Property CodeContract LawAppellate ReviewRemandSubcontractor
References
20
Case No. 07-06-0379-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2007

Dawn Gayken, D.D.S. v. Ann D. Ewton, Individually and as Independent of the Estate of Merle Clement Ewton, D.D.S.

Dawn Gayken, D.D.S. (appellant) appealed a trial court's order. The appellant's counsel informed the court that Dawn Gayken had filed a voluntary petition as debtor under the United States Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, any further action in this appeal is automatically stayed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362. For administrative purposes, the appeal is removed from the docket of this court and abated. The appeal will be reinstated upon a proper motion showing that the stay has been lifted or that the court may otherwise proceed with the disposition of the cause.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayAbatementAppellate ProcedureVoluntary PetitionDebtorStay LiftedJurisdictionTexas Court of AppealsCivil Procedure
References
1
Case No. ADJ10146503
Regular
Oct 20, 2018

ALAN KOON vs. RZ PLUMBING, INC.; AMTRUST

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to applicant's attorney, Robert Rassp, pursuant to Labor Code section 5801. The Second District Court of Appeals had previously remanded the matter for this purpose. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed Rassp's request for 13.25 hours of work and $865.59 in costs, totaling $6,165.59. The Board disallowed two hours of travel time due to lack of clarity on the reasonableness and nature of the activity. Ultimately, the Board awarded Rassp a total of $5,365.59 in attorney's fees and costs.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feescostsremandWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardbill of particularsreasonableness of feestravel time deductionawarded amounttrial level return
References
0
Case No. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

KEVIN THOMPSON vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board awarded applicant Kevin Thompson an additional attorney's fee of $1,500 under Labor Code section 5801. This fee is for services rendered by his attorney in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review to the Court of Appeal. The Board disallowed the requested clerical fees as section 5801 applies only to attorney services. Additionally, the request for costs under Labor Code section 5811 was denied due to the lack of required itemization and supporting documentation.

Labor Code § 5801Attorney's feePetition for Writ of ReviewAppeals BoardSupplemental awardReasonable attorney's feeAppellate levelPenaltyClerical servicesLabor Code § 5811
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 13,835 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