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. ADJ8339009
Regular
Jan 08, 2016

WINSTON ROCKEFELLER (Dec'd), SUZANNA ROCKEFELLER (Dependent), ERIKA OSWALD (Dependent) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS NORTHERN TRANSPORTATION HUBQ-ADMINISTRATION; legally uninsured; administered by STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board intends to rescind its prior order granting reconsideration and dismiss the applicant's petition as moot. This action is prompted by the defendant's assertion that a new Panel Qualified Medical Examiner has been appointed and has issued reports, rendering the original dispute regarding the disqualification of the previous PQME moot. The Board will proceed with rescinding and dismissing unless the applicant demonstrates good cause why the issue remains live. No decision on the merits of the original petition has been made.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderPanel Qualified Medical ExaminerPQMERule 41.5(d)(2)(A)disqualifying conflict of interestmoot issueNotice of Moot IssueOpinion and Order Granting Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. STK 0175350
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

FRANCIS NZIBO vs. KAISER PERMANENTE, CALIFORNIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION

This case involves applicant Francis Nzibo's claim for penalties against Kaiser Permanente for alleged unreasonable delay in providing cervical surgery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to dismiss the petition for reconsideration as moot because there is no evidence presented as to whether the applicant has actually undergone the authorized surgery. If surgery was not performed, no compensation payment was delayed, rendering the penalty claim moot.

Moot petitionPetition for reconsiderationCervical surgeryUnreasonable delayMedical care provisionPenaltiesWCJ findingsLabor Code section 5814Authorization of surgeryFailure to present
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Education Agency v. Maxwell

This case involves the constitutionality of former TEX.EDUC.CODE § 35.030, which mandated confidentiality for TAAS tests and prevented parents from viewing them. Larry Maxwell and other parents sued the Texas Education Agency and other defendants, asserting violations of their constitutional rights, particularly their fundamental right to direct their children's upbringing and education. The trial court initially found the statute unconstitutional and issued an injunction. However, while the appeal was pending, the legislature repealed Section 35.030, rendering the core constitutional issue moot. The appellate court vacated the injunction as moot but reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for a hearing on attorney's fees, finding that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1988 despite the mootness of the primary issue.

Parental RightsEducation LawConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentMootness DoctrineAttorney's FeesCivil RightsTexas Education CodeTAAS Tests
References
10
Case No. ADJ11991353
Regular
Mar 30, 2020

TEOFILA DICKERSON vs. ALBERTSONS HOLDINGS

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding it moot. While the WCJ erred by not addressing the medical treatment issue at the expedited hearing, a subsequent Findings and Award was issued without challenge. This award determined temporary disability, rendering the prior dispute regarding treatment resolution moot for now. The Board advises filing a new DOR if disputes arise, as the WCJ must address all issues presented.

Petition for RemovalPrimary Treating PhysicianExpedited HearingMedical TreatmentFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityDeclaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)MootLabor Code section 5313Appeals Board en banc
References
1
Case No. 01-15-00583-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2015

the Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge of Galveston County v. the Honorable Lonnie Cox, Judge of the 56th District Court of Galveston County

This interlocutory appeal concerns a temporary injunction obtained by District Court Judge Lonnie Cox on behalf of Ms. Bonita Quiroga against County Judge Mark Henry of Galveston County. The injunction directed Judge Henry to reinstate Ms. Quiroga's employment as court administrator with a salary of $113,000. The core dispute is over the salary range for the court administrator position, with Judge Cox proposing $85,000-$120,000 and the Commissioners Court setting it at $57,705-$63,695 due to decreased responsibilities. The Appellant argues that new amendments to Section 75.401 of the Government Code, effective September 1, 2015, render the temporary injunction moot. The new statute grants exclusive power to the judges served to appoint the court administrator and to the Commissioners Court to set the salary range, nullifying the injunction's directives. Therefore, the Appellant requests the Court of Appeals to set aside the temporary injunction and dismiss the underlying injunction suit.

Interlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionMootnessGovernment CodeCourt AdministratorSalary DisputeGalveston CountyCommissioners CourtAppellate ProcedureDismissal
References
3
Case No. ADA
Regular
Jul 18, 2011

DANIEL CUEVAS vs. OLTMAN'S CONSTRUCTION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, in Liquidation, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, INC. (Servicing Facility)

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by defendant CIGA regarding an award of psychiatric treatment for an industrial ankle injury. The applicant, Daniel Cuevas, passed away from cancer, rendering the issue of his entitlement to further medical treatment moot. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted CIGA's petition and rescinded the original award. The Board substituted a new finding stating that the applicant's death mooted the treatment issue.

CIGAliquidationreconsiderationmootpsychiatric treatmentcortisone injectionindustrial ankle injurymedical treatment awardrescindsubstituted
References
0
Case No. ADJ2524908 (MON 0254667)
Regular
Sep 12, 2014

Michelle Sampay vs. Wackenhut, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

This case involves a lien claimant, Dr. David Silver, who sought removal of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) judge's orders. The judge had bifurcated Dr. Silver's lien from sanctions issues and declined to enforce a subpoena for a claims adjuster. The WCAB dismissed Dr. Silver's petition for removal as moot because a subsequent order appointing an independent bill reviewer rendered the removal issue moot. Any party aggrieved by the subsequent decision can petition for reconsideration.

Petition for RemovalWCJLien ClaimantDavid Silver M.D.WackenhutGallagher BassettWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleaseIndustrial InjurySecurity Officer
References
0
Case No. 12-19-00144-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2019

in Re: Old Republic Risk Management, Old Republic Insurance Company, Thornton, Biechlin, Reynolds & Guerra, L.C., Timothy K. Singley and Dana M. Gannon

Relators challenged the respondent's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The Court conditionally granted the petition, directing the respondent to vacate an earlier order and issue a new order, granting the plea for specific claims and abating the trial court proceeding pending the Division of Workers’ Compensation’s resolution of subrogation and benefit inflation issues. The respondent complied with this order, rendering the mandamus proceeding moot. Consequently, the relators' petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot.

MandamusPlea to JurisdictionMotion to DismissMootnessWorkers' CompensationSubrogation ClaimFraudulent LienInsurance Code ViolationsFraudConspiracy
References
2
Case No. 04-10-00872-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2011

City of Laredo v. Rio Grande H2O Guardian

This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of the City of Laredo's plea to the jurisdiction against Rio Grande H20 Guardian. Rio Grande H20 Guardian filed a declaratory judgment action challenging the legality of zoning ordinances passed by the City of Laredo. The City contended that Rio Grande lacked standing and that its claims were unripe and moot. The City also appealed the trial court's handling of a writ of mandamus request for public records. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Rio Grande had associational standing, its claims were ripe, and not moot. The court further clarified that the trial court did not issue a ruling on the writ of mandamus, leaving no issue for review on that specific point.

Zoning LawLand Use PlanningMunicipal OrdinancesStanding DoctrineRipeness DoctrineMootness DoctrineInterlocutory AppealDeclaratory Judgment ActionPublic Information ActTexas Constitution
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Norwood v. Raytheon Co.

This case addresses the legal recognition of medical monitoring claims in Texas law. Plaintiffs, a group of individuals including radar operators and technicians, alleged negligent conduct by several defendant manufacturers of radar equipment due to inadequate shielding and failure to warn about radiation exposure. They sought class certification for medical monitoring for those not yet suffering from illness and for liability issues for those with existing injuries. Defendants moved to dismiss all medical monitoring claims, arguing they are not a recognized cause of action in Texas, and also sought to dismiss claims by the Bund Zur Unterstutzung based on associational standing. The Court granted the motion to dismiss all medical monitoring claims, concluding that Texas law does not recognize such an independent cause of action. Consequently, the Bund Zur Unterstutzung was dismissed as a party, rendering the motion regarding its standing moot.

Medical MonitoringClass ActionMotion to DismissRadiation ExposureRadar EquipmentTexas LawFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA)Personal InjuryNegligence
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 12,257 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