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. 08-18-00170-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2019

Jesse Robles v. Mount Franklin Foods, L.L.C. D/B/A Azar Nut Company

Jesse Robles, a temporary worker sent by Southwest Staffing to Mount Franklin Food, L.L.C. (Azar Nut Company), was injured in an industrial accident caused by an Azar Nut employee. Robles received workers’ compensation benefits from Southwest Staffing's carrier and subsequently sued Azar Nut. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the exclusive remedy provisions of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, treating it as a granted motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that under Texas Labor Code Section 93.004, Azar Nut, as the client company of a temporary employment service that carried workers’ compensation insurance covering Robles, was protected by the exclusive remedy defense, regardless of traditional employer definitions or contractual clauses.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyTemporary EmploymentClient CompanySummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeAppellate ReviewIndustrial AccidentNegligence ClaimStatutory Interpretation
References
39
Case No. 03-03-00452-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

Alejandro Robles v. State

Alejandro Robles was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to six years' imprisonment. He appealed, raising three issues: whether his prior felony conviction from Puerto Rico could be used for punishment enhancement, whether it barred him from probation eligibility, and whether he was denied credit for time served. The appellate court affirmed his conviction, holding that Puerto Rico is considered a 'state' under Texas law for both enhancement and probation eligibility purposes. However, the court found that Robles was entitled to credit for time served between his arrest and sentencing, and therefore modified the district court's judgment to include this credit.

Aggravated assaultDeadly weaponFelony enhancementPrior convictionPuerto RicoStatutory constructionProbation eligibilityTime creditAppellate reviewTexas Penal Code
References
17
Case No. 07-21-00058-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2022

Samuel San Miguel v. Marsha McLane

Samuel San Miguel, a sexually violent predator civilly committed for treatment, filed a lawsuit in Lamb County's 154th District Court against Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) employees. He alleged constitutional rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, specifically concerning denial of computer access, limited law library time, and his placement in a Secure Management Unit. The TCCO employees moved to dismiss, arguing that the Texas Health and Safety Code Chapter 841 mandated the lawsuit be heard in the original committing court, the 435th District Court of Montgomery County. The Lamb County court agreed and dismissed the suit without prejudice. On appeal to the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, San Miguel contended federal law preempted the state's jurisdictional requirements. The Court of Appeals, however, found no conflict between Chapter 841 and federal law, concluding that the state statute merely dictates the proper venue without hindering federal claims. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal.

Civil CommitmentSexually Violent PredatorConstitutional RightsSection 1983Federal PreemptionState Court JurisdictionAppellate ProcedureInadequate BriefingDue ProcessEqual Protection
References
9
Case No. CV-23-2242
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Miguel Juncal

Claimant Miguel Juncal suffered physical injuries from a fall at work in November 2021 and was awarded temporary total disability benefits. The employer and its carrier, Maspeth Remodeling Co. et al., appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied their request to retroactively reduce Juncal's benefits. The carrier sought a reduction based on an independent medical examination from August 2022, arguing that the reduction should be effective from the IME date or the RFA-2 filing date. The Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, holding that benefits should continue at the temporary total disability rate until the March 2023 hearing, interpreting 12 NYCRR 300.23 (b) (2) as directory rather than mandatory regarding the 20-day hearing timeframe. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsBenefit ReductionIndependent Medical ExaminationPsychiatric InjuriesOrthopedic InjuriesAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
5
Case No. 2024-05-4796
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2025

Torres, Miguel v. Allvan Corporation

This case involves an appeal regarding a trial court's rejection of a proposed workers' compensation settlement agreement. Employee Miguel Torres sustained a compensable inguinal hernia while working for Allvan Corporation. After medical treatment, including surgery, the parties sought to settle the claim for a lump sum, describing it as "disputed" due to a lack of a permanent medical impairment rating from the treating physician, Dr. Joshua Taylor. The trial court declined approval, citing insufficient information regarding maximum medical improvement, absence of a permanent impairment opinion, the employee's desire to see the doctor again, and a failure to establish the settlement was in the employee's best interest. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing the judge's responsibility to determine the settlement's best interest for the employee, particularly given the lack of expert medical evaluation on MMI and impairment.

Workers' CompensationSettlement Agreement RejectionMedical Impairment RatingMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)Employee Best InterestInguinal HerniaTrial Court DiscretionAppellate ReviewDisputed Claim SettlementFuture Medical Benefits
References
11
Case No. CV-23-1577
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Miguel Maria Santos

Miguel Maria Santos, a pizza delivery person, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits. Santos alleged injuries from a fall off his electric bicycle on June 14, 2021, while working for 77 GP, Inc. However, 77 GP, Inc. and its carrier controverted the claim, asserting no employer-employee relationship existed at the time of the accident. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge credited the employer's testimony that Santos was discharged on June 2, 2021, for drinking on the job, prior to his injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision, and the Appellate Division also affirmed, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' compensationEmployer-employee relationshipSubstantial evidenceCredibility assessmentPizza deliveryDischarged employeeBicycle accidentAppellate reviewClaim denial
References
5
Case No. 14-12-00418-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2013

Miguel Angel Pappolla v. Marcia Juliet Simovich

Miguel Angel Pappolla appealed a trial court's wage withholding order for contractual alimony, which was part of a divorce settlement with Marcia Julieta Simovich. Pappolla failed to make payments, prompting Simovich to seek enforcement through wage withholding. Pappolla argued that contractual alimony is not subject to wage withholding under Texas Family Code, section 8.101, and that the relevant section violates the Texas Constitution. The appellate court reviewed legal precedent uniformly rejecting income withholding for purely contractual alimony. The court concluded that income withholding for contractual alimony is only permissible under section 8.101 if it meets the requirements for spousal maintenance, which was not established in this case. The court also identified constitutional problems with the appellee's interpretation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and vacated the wage withholding.

alimonywage withholdingcontractual alimonyspousal maintenanceTexas Family Codedivorce settlementappealappellate courtlegal interpretationconstitutional law
References
10
Case No. Index No. 300908/17 Appeal No. 3021 Case No. 2023-04605
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2024

Robles-Martinez v. Partnership 92 West, L.P.

Plaintiff Joshua Robles-Martinez, a delivery worker, sustained injuries when a sidewalk hatch door struck his head while making a delivery to Columbus Gourmet Food. Plaintiff alleged a dangerous condition stemming from a building facade modification that prevented the door from fully opening. Defendant landlord Partnership 92 West, L.P.'s motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims for contractual indemnification against tenant Columbus Gourmet Food, was denied. Partnership failed to demonstrate the modification was tenant-created or a nonstructural defect, and its indemnification clause did not cover its own potential negligence. Additionally, third-party defendant Fischer Foods of New York, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied due to unresolved factual issues concerning plaintiff's 'grave injury' claim, which involved a traumatic brain injury and alleged permanent unemployability. The Supreme Court's order was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, First Department.

Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationLandlord LiabilityTenant LiabilityPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDelivery Worker InjurySidewalk Hatch DoorFacade ModificationGrave Injury Claim
References
5
Case No. ADJ7756309
Regular
Jan 09, 2012

Miguel Robles vs. Evolution Fresh, Inc., Amtrust North America

In **Robles v. Evolution Fresh, Inc.**, the applicant sought reconsideration of a prior decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration. This action was taken to allow further study of the factual and legal issues presented in the case. The Board aims to issue a just and reasoned decision after thorough review and potential further proceedings.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Decisionstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersRonnie G. CaplaneDejdra E. Lowe
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04978
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2019

Robles v. Taconic Mgt. Co., LLC

Edilberto Robles, a laborer, sustained head injuries from a closing freight elevator door and commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) and common-law negligence against multiple entities involved in the building's management, operation, and his employment. The Supreme Court granted several motions for summary judgment. On appeal and cross-appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It denied summary judgment to Taconic Management Company, LLC, Taconic Management Corp., 111 Chelsea, LLC, and Waldorf Carting Corporation on the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding triable issues of fact regarding supervision and control and the alter ego defense. The court also denied summary judgment on indemnification claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and Waldorf Carting Corporation. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Taconic and Chelsea, and the dismissal of claims against Collins Building Services, Inc., and New York Elevator & Electrical Corporation were affirmed.

Personal injuryLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentIndemnificationThird-party actionWorkers' Compensation LawAlter ego defensePremises liability
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 181 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