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. 01-14-00892-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2014

Adelaida Salazar Bautista A/K/A Adelaida Alvarado, Individually and as Next Friend of Maria Jennifer Aide A/K/A Maria Jennifer Alvarado, A. A., A. A., I. S. A., M. A., and E. A., Minors And Irineo Alvarado and Maria Ana Moctezuma v. Trinidad Drilling Limited

This is an interlocutory appeal of an order granting a special appearance by Trinidad Drilling Ltd., a Canadian corporation, in a wrongful death lawsuit. Appellants Adelaida Salazar Bautista et al. sued Trinidad Drilling Ltd. for the death of Nabor Alvarado, alleging negligence and attempting to establish specific personal jurisdiction by claiming the parent company controlled and oversaw the subsidiary's drilling operations in Texas. The trial court, Hon. Brent Gamble presiding in the 270th Judicial District Court of Harris County, granted Trinidad Drilling Ltd.'s special appearance on October 13, 2014. Trinidad Drilling Ltd. argues that it lacks sufficient contacts with Texas for specific or general personal jurisdiction, maintaining that it is a separate entity from the subsidiary, Trinidad LP, and therefore its corporate independence should be respected. The appellee requests the Court to affirm the trial court's judgment.

Personal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingParent-Subsidiary RelationshipWrongful DeathNegligenceSpecial AppearanceInterlocutory AppealTexas Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laurie v. Niagara Candy, Inc.

Plaintiff Lewis P. Laurie, an employee of third-party defendant Friendship Construction, Inc., sustained injuries after falling from a ladder during construction on a building owned by defendant Niagara Candy, Inc. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, finding no merit to the argument that Laurie was a recalcitrant worker, as there was no proof he was instructed to use his safety belt under the circumstances. Additionally, Niagara Candy's cross motion for summary judgment against Rigger Construction Co., Inc., for common-law and contractual indemnification was granted. Rigger Construction Co., Inc.'s cross motion for summary judgment against Friendship Construction, Inc., for common-law indemnification was also granted, based on the lack of evidence that either Niagara Candy or Rigger supervised or controlled the work.

Worker InjuryLadder FallLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentIndemnificationRecalcitrant WorkerConstruction AccidentPremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityGeneral Contractor Liability
References
4
Case No. 02-16-00216-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2018

Lori DeAngelis and Laurie Robinson v. Protective Parents Coalition, Jennifer Olson, Deborah Logsdon, Jayne Peery, Marie Howard, AND Holly Carless

Lori DeAngelis and Laurie Robinson (the Attorneys) sought pre-suit discovery against Protective Parents Coalition (PPC) and its members (the Court Watchers) for alleged defamation stemming from online statements about their professional conduct in Tarrant County family courts. The Court Watchers successfully moved to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), asserting free speech protections. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the TCPA applies to Rule 202 petitions and that the Attorneys failed to justify the need for pre-suit discovery. However, the court reversed the trial court's award of attorney's fees, citing the use of an incorrect standard, and remanded for a proper determination of reasonable fees, including appellate fees for one of the Court Watchers.

Texas lawCivil procedureRule 202TCPAAnti-SLAPPFreedom of speechDefamationPre-suit discoveryAttorney's feesSanctions
References
95
Case No. ADJ7774631
Regular
Aug 16, 2019

IGNACIO GARCIA vs. TRINIDAD RODRIGUEZ dba RODRIGUEZ FARM LABOR CONTRACTOR, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, SERGIO RODRIGUEZ

This case involves a worker's compensation claim by Ignacio Garcia. The primary issue was whether Garcia was employed by Trinidad Rodriguez dba Rodriguez Farm Labor Contractor or Sergio Rodriguez. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, affirming the judge's finding that Trinidad Rodriguez was the employer. While the Board noted the applicant has the burden to prove employment, they found the evidence supported the conclusion that Garcia was employed by Trinidad Rodriguez.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenialEmployment StatusFarm Labor ContractorState Compensation Insurance FundGoing and Coming RuleBurden of ProofCredibility DeterminationsInsured EmployerUninsured Employer
References
1
Case No. Docket No. 2015-06-0677, State File No. 60024-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2016

Navyac, Laury v. Universal Health Services

In this interlocutory appeal, the employee sustained a fractured ankle after slipping at a fast-food restaurant while traveling to a work-related event. The employer initially accepted the claim but later denied it. The trial court ruled the injury occurred in the course and scope of employment but not primarily out of employment. The Appeals Board affirmed the 'course and scope' finding but reversed the 'arising primarily out of employment' conclusion, determining the employment contributed more than fifty percent to the injury. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentSpecial Errand RuleDeviation from RouteFractured AnkleEmployer LiabilityMedical Benefits
References
14
Case No. 13-00-104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2005

Exxon Corporation v. Laurie T. Miesch

This is an appeal concerning an oil and gas dispute where Emerald Oil & Gas, L.C. and intervening royalty interest owners sued Exxon Corporation and Exxon Texas, Inc. for wrongful conduct including waste and breach of contract related to oil and gas wells. The trial court's judgment in favor of the royalty interest owners on their claims for waste and breach of contract, including actual and punitive damages, was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's directed verdict against Emerald Oil & Gas, L.C. on its claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with economic opportunity, remanding these for jury determination. The core issues involved the statute of limitations, the application of the discovery rule, whether Exxon acted as a reasonably prudent operator, and claims of double recovery.

Oil and GasWasteBreach of ContractFraudulent ConcealmentStatute of LimitationsPunitive DamagesRoyalty InterestWell PluggingMineral RightsTexas Law
References
121
Case No. 57
Regular
Apr 28, 2011

LAURIE TRINIDAD vs. ALBERTSON'S, PSI, Administered by SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

This case concerns an applicant's claim for temporary disability benefits beyond five years from the date of injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the WCJ's decision that it lacked jurisdiction to award these benefits. The WCAB determined that while the applicant experienced new periods of disability after the five-year mark, no petition to reopen or for new and further disability was filed within the statutory period following a prior order awarding temporary disability. The Board distinguished this case from prior decisions where jurisdiction extended beyond five years due to the absence of any prior award or a continuing award that was improperly terminated.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLaurie TrinidadAlbertson'sSpecialty Risk ServicesOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationtemporary disability benefitsjurisdictiongrocery checkerlumbar spinebilateral shoulders
References
12
Case No. ADJ14660179
Regular
Feb 27, 2025

LAURIE FIELDS vs. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SEDGWICK

Applicant Laurie Fields sought to disqualify a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) alleging bias, after the WCJ initially found her injury non-industrial, a decision later rescinded on reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) considered the petition, a supplemental petition, and the WCJ's report. The Board dismissed the petition for disqualification, finding it was untimely filed according to WCAB Rule 10960, as the alleged conduct occurred months before the petition was filed on December 19, 2024. The Board reiterated that expressions of opinion based on evidence and erroneous rulings are not grounds for disqualification if subject to review.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJ BiasTimelinessLabor Code Section 5311Code of Civil Procedure Section 641WCAB Rule 10960QME ReportsReconsiderationIndependent Medical ExaminerOpinion and Order
References
11
Case No. ADJ10938656
Regular
Apr 18, 2018

LAURIE JOHNSON vs. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Laurie Johnson's Petition for Reconsideration because it was filed against a non-final interlocutory order addressing venue, not a substantive right or threshold issue. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm would result, nor that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Removal is an extraordinary remedy rarely granted by the Board. Therefore, both petitions were dismissed or denied as a matter of law.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive Right or LiabilityThreshold IssueInterlocutory Procedural DecisionVenueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
6
Case No. ADJ7934881
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

ERNIE PACHECO vs. LAURIE RECHTEGER OSBORN, FARMERS INSURANCE

This case concerns Ernie Pacheco, a handyman who sustained an injury on September 8, 2008, while working. The defendant, Laurie Rechteger Osborn and Farmers Insurance, petitioned for reconsideration of the original findings and award, arguing Pacheco did not meet the 52-hour threshold for coverage in the 90 days prior to his injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's report and recommendations. The WCJ found the defendant mischaracterized the applicant's testimony regarding hours worked, concluding that Pacheco did, in fact, exceed 52 hours when including all tasks. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination.

Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJ ReportGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.HandymanSlip and FallUpper ExtremitiesHeart/StrokeExclusion from Coverage52-Hour Rule
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 41 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