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. ADJ6724203
Regular
Mar 29, 2013

Med-Legal LLC vs.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Med-Legal LLC's Petition for Reconsideration, rescinding the dismissal of its lien. Med-Legal claimed its representative was present at the lien conference and never received the Notice of Intention to Dismiss. Due to unclear hearing minutes and conflicting address information, the Board found the record regarding the conference unclear. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to determine the lien's compensability.

Med-Legal LLCPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of Dismissallien conferenceNotice of Intention to DismissMinutes of Hearingrescindedreturned to trial levelillegible recordszip code discrepancy
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. 02A01-9505-CV-00118
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 1996

Cassandra Hughlett v. Shelby County Health Care Corporation, Regional Medical Center at Memphis A/K/A The Med

Plaintiff Cassandra Hughlett underwent a cesarean section in 1991, during which a surgical sponge was allegedly left in her abdomen by the defendants, Shelby County Health Care Corporation, Regional Medical Center at Memphis, a/k/a "The Med," and the University of Tennessee Medical Group, Inc. She subsequently experienced severe pain and required readmission to remove the foreign body, leading her to file a medical malpractice suit alleging negligence. The parties reached a settlement, but a dispute remained regarding whether the plaintiff could recover $6,777.17 in medical expenses paid by the Tennessee Medicaid program from the defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of Hughlett, holding that Medicaid payments were recoverable. "The Med" appealed, arguing that social security benefits (which they claimed Medicaid payments were part of) are collateral sources under T.C.A. § 29-26-119 and thus not recoverable. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, citing Nance by Nance v. Westside Hosp. and federal law (42 U.S.C. § 1396a (a) 25(A)), which mandates states to pursue recovery from legally liable third parties. The court concluded that the plaintiff's losses were not "replaced or indemnified" due to the state's right of subrogation for Medicaid payments, making the benefits recoverable.

Medical MalpracticeMedicaid PaymentsCollateral Source RuleSubrogation RightsSocial Security BenefitsHealth Care Provider NegligenceSurgical ErrorForeign Body RetentionCesarean Section ComplicationsDamages Recovery
References
4
Case No. NUMBER 13-18-00236-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2020

Michael A. Garza v. Well Med Medical Management, Inc.

Appellant Michael A. Garza sued Well Med Medical Management, Inc. (Well Med) for personal injuries, alleging negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior after a collision with Well Med employee Joanne Garcia. Garza claimed Garcia was reviewing work-related papers while driving, contending this fell within the course and scope of her employment due to Well Med's flexible work policies. The trial court granted Well Med's motion for summary judgment, finding Garcia was not acting within the scope of her employment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding there was no evidence that reviewing documents while driving was a specifically assigned duty or that Well Med had impliedly approved such conduct, distinguishing it from situations where employees are on special missions for their employer.

Respondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentCourse and Scope of EmploymentNegligenceVicarious LiabilityCommuting RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionEmployee ConductEmployer LiabilityTexas Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington Legal Foundation v. Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation

The Washington Legal Foundation, along with a Texas attorney and a legal services consumer, challenged the mandatory Texas Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) Program, alleging violations of their First and Fifth Amendment rights. They claimed the program constituted a taking of property without just compensation and compelled financial support for objectionable organizations. The Defendants, including the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation and Supreme Court Justices, sought summary judgment, arguing the IOLTA program did not infringe on constitutional rights and served a legitimate state interest in providing legal services to the indigent. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, concluding that no cognizable property interest in the IOLTA-generated interest existed and no First Amendment violations occurred. Consequently, all plaintiffs' claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Fifth AmendmentFirst AmendmentIOLTA ProgramTaking ClauseFreedom of SpeechFreedom of AssociationSummary JudgmentTexasState BarLegal Services
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ8019724
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

LORETO RAMIREZ vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Med-Legal Photocopy's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the administrative law judge's decision to dismiss Med-Legal's lien with prejudice. This dismissal was based on Med-Legal's failure to pay the mandatory lien activation fee as required by Labor Code § 4903.06. The Board found the statutory language clear and unequivocal regarding the obligation and deadline for paying this fee, regardless of when the case was initially set.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeLien ConferenceLien Activation FeeLabor Code § 4903.06Dismissal with PrejudiceRetroactive ApplicationFigueroa v. B.C. Doering Co.En Banc Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ8649778
Regular
Mar 18, 2019

Rand Sessor vs. AKH COMPANY, INC., THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc.

This case concerns a lien claim by Med-Legal Photocopy for services rendered to applicant Rand Sessor. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted Med-Legal's petition for reconsideration, reversing the WCJ's finding that the lien was untimely. The WCAB held that the lien was timely filed within the 18-month statutory period under Labor Code section 4903.5, as the date of service was established by an invoice and accompanying records sent on September 11, 2013. Consequently, Med-Legal's lien was found to be valid.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 4903.5Statute of limitationsDate of serviceIndustrial injuryCompromise and ReleaseSubpoena duces tecumInvoice
References
8
Case No. ADJ10986659
Regular
Sep 30, 2025

ALFREDO SERRANO vs. BIG IDEA HOLDINGS, LLC; OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further study the legal and factual issues raised by the Petition for Reconsideration. Applicant sought reconsideration of the January 27, 2022 Findings and Award, challenging the findings regarding a specific industrial injury to his right shoulder and a claimed cumulative injury. The Board concluded that the medical-legal opinions of the Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME), Dr. Bruce Huffer, were legally insufficient and analytically incomplete because he applied an incorrect legal standard for causation and apportionment, repeatedly requiring 'certainty' instead of 'reasonable medical probability'. Consequently, the Board rescinded the F&A and returned the matter to the trial level for further development of the medical-legal record, suggesting the selection of an Agreed Medical Evaluator.

QMEcumulative injuryapportionmentarthroplastysubstantial evidencemedical-legal opinionsrecord developmentLabor Code section 5701reasonable medical probabilitysuperimposed injury
References
24
Case No. ADJ2192080 (POM 0289726)
Regular
Jan 19, 2016

MARTHA NOLASCO vs. CITIZENS BUSINESS BANK, FEDERAL INSURANCE, CHUBB GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and affirmed the prior order, finding that Med-Legal's photocopying services were medical-legal expenses incurred to prove a contested claim. However, Med-Legal failed to demonstrate that its charges for these services were reasonable, and therefore is not entitled to additional payment beyond what the defendant already paid. Issues regarding penalties and interest were deferred.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantMedical-Legal ExpensesPhotocopying ServicesReasonableness of ChargesPetition for CreditCompromise and ReleaseBurden of ProofMarket Rate ComparisonsFee Schedule
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 6,443 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