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. ADJ4140574 (VNO 0417628) ADJ3588068 (VNO 0472981)
Regular
Jun 03, 2013

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

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

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

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. ADJ6699348
Regular
Mar 17, 2016

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

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. ADJ4543302 (LBO 0384577) ADJ4573415 (LBO 0384579)
Regular
Oct 31, 2008

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, reversing a prior ruling. The Board found that the applicant's specific injury claim was barred by Labor Code section 3352(h) because she did not meet the minimum hours or earnings threshold for an employee. Additionally, the Board determined that the applicant's cumulative trauma claim was barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as it was filed after notice of termination. Consequently, the applicant will take nothing from her claims.

Labor Code Section 3352(h)Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensespecific injurycumulative traumahousekeeperbabysitterdate of injurydefinition of employeePetition for Reconsideration
References
2
Case No. ADJ6521131
Regular
Aug 11, 2010

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves an applicant injured while tree trimming for homeowners. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning the original decision. The Board found that because the applicant was an unlicensed contractor performing work requiring a license, he is considered an employee as a matter of law under Labor Code section 2750.5. However, the applicant is still excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3352(h). Therefore, despite being an employee, the applicant takes nothing by way of his claim.

Labor Code section 2750.5Labor Code section 3352(h)unlicensed contractoremployee presumptionstatutory employerresidential dwellingtree trimmingBusiness and Professions Code section 7026.1Cedillo v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.independent contractor
References
7
Case No. ADJ3968322
Regular
Apr 29, 2011

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

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision finding applicant Gabriel Cortez was an employee of defendants Thomas and Mia Wynn. The Board rescinded the decision due to an incomplete record, specifically the absence of the WCJ's actual decision. The matter is remanded for further proceedings and a new decision, allowing parties to address a newly raised Labor Code section 3715(b) issue. The defendants' arguments regarding employment status under Labor Code sections 2750.5, 3351(d), and 3352(h) remain to be fully adjudicated.

Labor Code section 2750.5Labor Code section 3351(d)Labor Code section 3352(h)unlicensed drywall installeremployment relationshipPetition for ReconsiderationReport and RecommendationSupplemental Petition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3715(d)WCJ decision
References
3
Case No. ADJ7329234; ADJ7432894; ADJ7434559; ADJ7433683
Regular
Dec 02, 2014

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

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinding the prior denial of industrial injury for psyche and heart claims. While applicant sustained a compensable psychiatric injury due to workplace events, compensation is barred by Labor Code section 3208.3(h) as it was substantially caused by good faith personnel actions. However, applicant's heart injury, presumed compensable under Labor Code section 3212, remains compensable as the presumption was not rebutted and section 3208.3(h) does not apply. Further proceedings will address the sleep disorder claim and other deferred issues.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeputy SheriffPsychiatric injuryHypertensionSleep dysfunctionGood faith personnel actionLabor Code section 3208.3(h)PresumptionLabor Code section 3212Heart trouble
References
24
Case No. W2015-00796-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Virginia H. Sanders appealed the denial of her unemployment compensation claim, stemming from her termination for alleged workplace misconduct at Baptist Memorial Hospital. Initially, the Department of Labor denied benefits, a decision reversed by the Appeals Tribunal. However, the Commissioner's Designee subsequently reversed the Tribunal, finding Sanders' actions constituted misconduct. The Chancery Court for Shelby County affirmed the Designee's decision. On appeal, the Tennessee Court of Appeals upheld the Chancery Court's ruling, concluding that substantial and material evidence supported the finding that Sanders' actions, including escalating a dispute and making a statement interpreted as a threat, violated hospital policy and constituted work-related misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from unemployment benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsWorkplace MisconductEmployee DischargeAppeals Court DecisionAdministrative Law ReviewSubstantial Evidence StandardEmployer Policy ViolationVerbal AltercationPro Se RepresentationTennessee Law
References
42
Case No. ADJ3550549 (LAO 0884192)
Regular
Sep 22, 2016

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

This case involves a remand from the Court of Appeals to the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) for the purpose of awarding attorney's fees and costs under Labor Code Section 5801. Applicant's attorney and the defendant's attorney jointly stipulated to an award of $11,600.00 to resolve this issue. The WCAB approved this stipulation and returned the matter to the trial level.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feesWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardremandedstipulationapplicant's attorneydefendant's attorneyjoint lettertrial levelaward
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 11,839 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