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. ADJ7711113
Regular
Apr 04, 2012

Lilia Orozco vs. EL POLLO LOCO

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ7711113, involved applicant Lilia Orozco seeking benefits from El Pollo Loco. Orozco claimed injury to her musculoskeletal system, psyche, and other areas. The Board denied Orozco's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision. The WCJ found insufficient evidence that Orozco sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of employment prior to her termination for misconduct. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings, which were crucial in denying the reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationWCJGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Lilia OrozcoEl Pollo LocoESISMusculoskeletalPsycheInternal
References
1
Case No. 08-15-00079-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

County of El Paso, Self-Insured v. Mary Orozco

Ruben Orozco, an El Paso County deputy sheriff, tragically died in a car accident while returning home from an extra-duty security assignment. His wife, Mary Orozco, sought death benefits from the self-insured County, which denied the claim, arguing Ruben was not in the course and scope of his employment. Initially, a hearing officer found the injury compensable, but the Appeals Panel reversed this, concluding Ruben was merely commuting. The trial court sided with Mary, granting her motion for summary judgment. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Ruben was not actively engaged in law enforcement duties at the moment of the accident, thus not acting within the course and scope of his employment.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentDeputy SheriffExtra-Duty AssignmentCommuting RuleDual-Purpose TravelSummary JudgmentDeath BenefitsTexas Law
References
22
Case No. 17-0381
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2020

Mary Orozco v. County of El Paso, Self-Insured

Mary Orozco, the widow of a deputy sheriff, sought workers' compensation benefits after her husband died in a vehicular accident while driving his assigned patrol car home from an extra-duty assignment. The central issue was whether his death occurred within the course and scope of his employment with El Paso County. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the lower court's decision, ruling in favor of the widow. The Court determined that the authorized operation of a marked patrol car on public roads, even during off-duty travel from an approved extra-duty assignment, constituted a law-enforcement activity that originated in and furthered the employer's business, especially given the county's provision and control over the vehicle.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentLaw Enforcement OfficerVehicular AccidentExtra-Duty EmploymentTake-Home Patrol CarComing-and-Going Rule ExceptionDual-Purpose RuleTexas Supreme CourtEl Paso County Sheriff's Department
References
11
Case No. ADJ6939588; ADJ8656131
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

FRANCISCO OROZCO vs. GLOBAL PLASTIC; AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Francisco Orozco's Petition for Removal seeking to rescind an order taking his case off calendar. Orozco argued the order was based on non-compliance with Labor Code section 4061(i), which he contended was unconstitutional and violated due process. The Board found removal was an extraordinary remedy not warranted here as Orozco failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, and the Board lacks the authority to declare statutes unconstitutional.

Petition for RemovalLabor Code section 4061(i)unconstitutionaldue processsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationmedical evaluationagreed medical evaluatorqualified medical evaluator
References
1
Case No. Appeal No. 43055-56
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. Orozco

This case involves a psychiatric patient's action for damages against her psychiatrist, Dr. Andres Orozco, and others, stemming from a sexual relationship. The appeal consolidates challenges to two Supreme Court orders regarding motions to amend the complaint and dismiss claims. The Court denied leave to appeal but granted reargument, vacating a prior decision and substituting a new one. Key rulings include the reinstatement of a derivative claim for loss of services by the plaintiff's husband and a cause of action for intentional infliction of mental distress. However, claims against certain defendants were dismissed as untimely, and a prima facie tort claim was found insufficiently pleaded, while the finding of professional misconduct against Dr. Orozco was deemed merely evidence and not preclusive.

Psychiatric MalpracticeSexual MisconductStatute of LimitationsContinuous Treatment DoctrineIntentional Infliction of Mental DistressPrima Facie TortDerivative ClaimProfessional MisconductRespondeat SuperiorSummary Judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Orozco v. Texas General Indemnity Co.

In this worker's compensation case, Jesus Orozco, an employee, was attacked by a supervisor at work without a known motive. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the carrier, Texas General Indemnity Company, asserting that Orozco failed to establish the injury occurred within the course and scope of employment. The appellate court, however, reversed and remanded the decision. It ruled that the non-moving party does not bear the burden of proof until the moving party conclusively demonstrates that the attack was for personal reasons unrelated to employment, thus highlighting the distinct burdens in summary judgment proceedings versus a trial on the merits.

Worker's CompensationWorkplace AssaultSummary JudgmentBurden of ProofScope of EmploymentAppellate CourtReversalRemandTexas Civil ProcedureEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Orozco

This is an appeal from an interlocutory judgment concerning a plea of privilege in a worker’s compensation case. Appellant, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA), sought to be sued in Lubbock County, where the injury occurred, while appellee, Jose T. Orozco (Orozco), filed suit in Webb County, his county of residence. The trial court in Webb County overruled TEIA’s plea of privilege, a decision which is being appealed here. Previous related litigation involving the same parties had affirmed the transfer of the case to Webb County, and the Supreme Court dismissed that appeal for want of jurisdiction. Citing precedents like Hagemeister v. Vanity Fair Properties and Pinney v. Cook, the court emphasized that a final judgment on a plea of privilege is conclusive on the issue of venue. Therefore, the court affirmed the order of the trial court overruling TEIA’s plea of privilege.

Venue DisputePlea of PrivilegeInterlocutory JudgmentRes JudicataWorkers Compensation LawAppellate ReviewTexas LawCourt JurisdictionStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. ADJ10444298, ADJ10460437
Regular
Dec 07, 2018

Applicant vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lilia Orozco's petition for reconsideration and dismissed her petition for removal. The Board found that the Workers' Compensation Judge's finding, which determined Orozco did not establish the defendant refused or neglected to provide medical treatment through its Medical Provider Network (MPN) and that she cannot treat outside the MPN, constitutes a final order. Therefore, reconsideration is the appropriate remedy, not removal, as removal requires demonstrating reconsideration will not be adequate after a final order.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissal of RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeFinal OrderMedical Provider NetworkMPNSubstantive RightLiabilityThreshold Issue
References
4
Case No. ADJ8300979
Regular
Oct 12, 2018

CLARA LILIA BARON vs. TARGET, SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Clara Lilia Baron's Petition for Removal, an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that Baron failed to demonstrate such harm, nor that reconsideration would be inadequate later. The decision noted that liens held by First Choice Healthcare Medical Group are already consolidated and stayed pending resolution of a Labor Code section 4615 issue. The matter is proceeding towards a mandatory settlement conference and trial in a related consolidated proceeding.

Petition for RemovalAppeals BoardWCJsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmreconsiderationadequate remedyLabor Code section 4615liensconsolidated
References
4
Case No. ADJ1951702 (VNO 0439183) ADJ2261665 (VNO 0439166)
Regular
Sep 13, 2013

DAVID OROZCO vs. REINFORCING POST TENSION, ZURICH

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by David Orozco. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the accompanying Report and Recommendation. Ultimately, the Board found the petition to be moot. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration.

Petition for ReconsiderationmootdismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJadministrative law judgeReinforcing Post TensionZurichADJ1951702ADJ2261665
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 39 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