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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olivares, Emilio v. Alfonso Mares, and Multi-Building, Inc.

Emilio Olivares, an injured construction worker, sued Alfonso Mares and Multi-Building, Inc., alleging negligence and premises liability after falling from an unsecured joist. Following a jury trial, the court awarded damages but reduced Olivares's past lost wages. On appeal, Olivares challenged the exclusion of a subcontract, the jury charge focusing on premises liability, the omission of Multi-Building from a negligent activity question, and the reduction of the lost wages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the jury charge, the exclusion of the subcontract, or the reduction of lost wages, and dismissed Multi-Building's conditional cross-points as moot.

NegligencePremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLost WagesJury Charge ErrorEvidence ExclusionSubcontract DisputeTexas LawAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
28
Case No. 03-14-00397-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

American Multi-Cinema, Inc.// Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas And Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas// Cross-Appellee, American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

This case is an appeal concerning whether American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC) sells 'goods' when exhibiting movies, impacting its eligibility for a cost-of-goods-sold deduction under Texas franchise tax law. The Cross-Appellants (Comptroller and Attorney General) contend that AMC sells intangible property (a license), an experience, or a service, none of which qualify as 'goods' as defined by the Texas Tax Code. They argue that AMC does not produce films, but merely exhibits them, thus not meeting the criteria for the deduction. The brief also addresses the applicability of 2007 and 2013 amendments to the franchise tax statute, asserting they are not retroactive to the 2008 and 2009 tax years at issue. The Cross-Appellants seek to reverse the trial court's decision that AMC is entitled to the deduction.

Franchise TaxCost of Goods SoldTexas Tax CodeMovie ExhibitionIntangible PropertyServicesTax DeductionStatutory InterpretationAppellate LawTax Law
References
20
Case No. ADJ2110739 (MON 0313927)
Regular
Oct 01, 2010

Rosalind Eskridge (Vallery) vs. TARGET STORES, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case returns to the trial level for a comprehensive re-analysis of applicant's permanent disability rating, specifically focusing on the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor. The Board rescinded the prior award because the judge's decision did not fully adhere to the *Ogilvie* en banc decisions, which mandate a specific four-step analysis for rebutting the DFEC. The judge must now conduct a complete *Ogilvie* analysis, potentially developing the record further, to determine if the applicant's demonstrated earning loss and other relevant factors, including *Montana* factors, justify an individualized DFEC adjustment over the scheduled rating. The applicant bears the burden of proving that her evidence substantially overcomes the prima facie validity of the scheduled DFEC.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiminished Future Earning CapacityDFECPermanent Disability Rating Schedule2005 PDRSOgilvie analysisAgreed Medical ExaminerDisability Evaluation UnitDEUAgreed Medical Examiner
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. ADJ6721939
Regular
Mar 01, 2010

BERTHA NORIEGA GARCIA vs. PATRICK L. HINRICHSEN, CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY

This case is remanded for further proceedings because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) did not fully analyze the Diminished Future Earning Capacity (DFEC) adjustment factor under the *Ogilvie* decisions. The ALJ improperly relied solely on applicant's testimony for lost earnings without a proper *Ogilvie* analysis, including the duration of post-injury earnings and consideration of other factors affecting earning capacity. The ALJ must conduct a complete *Ogilvie* analysis, weigh the evidence, and explain how the adjusted DFEC factor reflects the applicant's actual earning capacity compared to the scheduled rating. The Board also clarified that temporary disability indemnity is not to be treated as post-injury earnings.

Diminished Future Earning CapacityDFECOgilvie analysisRebuttalScheduled Permanent Disability RatingPost-injury earningsEarnings lossTemporary disability indemnityPermanent and stationary dateTriers-of-fact
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00712 [158 AD3d 1114]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2018

Bonczar v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.

Plaintiff David M. Bonczar commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained when he fell from a ladder in a movie theater owned by American Multi-Cinema, Inc. He was updating a fire alarm system as a subcontractor. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Appellate Division reversed this order, concluding that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden because he did not know why the ladder malfunctioned and might not have checked its positioning or locking mechanism. The majority found a plausible view that plaintiff's own acts were the sole cause of the accident. A dissenting opinion argued that plaintiff had met his burden and the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Ladder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewProximate CausationSole Proximate Cause DefenseWorkplace SafetyFall from HeightStatutory ViolationDuty to Provide Protection
References
15
Case No. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. ADJ8438071
Regular
Jun 07, 2013

MONICA CONTRERAS vs. KELLER WILLIAMS REALTY, SACRAMENTO METRO; TOWER NATIONAL INSURANCE IRVINE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding that Monica Contreras was an employee of Keller Williams Realty. The WCAB determined that the initial finding was erroneously based on the legal requirement for real estate agents to be associated with a broker, rather than a factual analysis of the control exercised by the defendant. The case is returned to the Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings and a new decision considering the factual relationship and the multi-factor test for employment status. The WCAB emphasized that the right to control the means and manner of work is the primary test.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMonica ContrerasKeller Williams RealtyTower National InsurancePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorReal Estate Agent
References
16
Case No. 09-22-00376-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Interflow Factors Corporation v. Hilton Holdings, LLC

This case involves a dispute between Interflow Factors Corporation, a factoring company, and Hilton Holdings, LLC, an account debtor. Interflow purchased accounts owed to Gulf Coast Security & Investigation by Hilton, and Hilton was notified of this assignment. Despite the notification, Hilton later paid Gulf Coast directly instead of Interflow, totaling $155,152.58. Interflow sought to collect these funds from Hilton, arguing that under UCC section 9.406, Hilton was obligated to pay the assignee. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Hilton and denied Interflow's. The Court of Appeals reversed both decisions, holding that the Factoring Agreement constituted a valid security agreement and that Hilton could not rely on estoppel or a Rule 11 Agreement between Interflow and Gulf Coast to avoid its obligation to Interflow. The case was remanded for a determination of attorney's fees, costs, and interest.

Factoring AgreementAccount DebtorAssignment of AccountsUniform Commercial CodeSecurity InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTexas LawBreach of ContractRule 11 Agreement
References
24
Case No. ADJ8814212
Regular
Sep 08, 2017

VICTORIA LEWIS vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the administrative law judge's order for a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME). The Board found the judge did not properly consider if good cause existed for replacement, particularly regarding an untimely supplemental report. The Board remanded the case to the trial level for further proceedings, requiring evaluation of factors like prejudice and efforts to remedy delays before a replacement QME is ordered. The ultimate decision will hinge on a comprehensive analysis of these factors, not solely the untimeliness of the report.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelFindings of Fact and Orderreplacement QMEuntimely reportgood causesupplemental reportMedical UnitAdministrative Director Rule 31.5
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,603 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