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. ADJ3413739
Regular
Oct 24, 2013

YOLANDA OSUNA vs. MARRIOTT HOTEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration filed by lien claimants and their representatives, Innovative Medical Management (IMM) and Louis Heard, as untimely. The Board also removed the case to itself and gave notice of its intention to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 against IMM and Heard. This action stems from IMM and Heard filing a frivolous, untimely petition containing misrepresentations about the timing of lien withdrawals, following the original imposition of sanctions by the WCJ for their failure to appear at a scheduled lien trial. The Board noted IMM and Heard's extensive history of similar sanctionable conduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Granting RemovalSanctionsHearing RepresentativesInnovative Medical ManagementLouis HeardLien ClaimantsLabor Code Section 5813Frivolous Petition
References
0
Case No. ADJ8693165
Regular
Sep 03, 2013

JEREMY VALENCIA vs. AGI PUBLISHING, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded an order imposing sanctions against the injured worker's attorney. This was due to improper service of the sanctions order and lack of sufficient notice, preventing the attorney from an adequate opportunity to be heard. The WCAB denied the petition for disqualification of the judge, finding no evidence of bias. The petition concerning the notice of intention to dismiss the case was dismissed as it was not a final order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsNotice of Intention to DismissWCJInjured WorkerCounselService of ProcessOfficial Address Record
References
5
Case No. ADJ11155531
Regular
Apr 01, 2020

PATRICK ALLEN vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted applicant's petition for removal, rescinded an order compelling attendance at a medical examination, and returned the matter for further proceedings. The Board found the order violated due process because the applicant did not receive prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. The WCJ issued the order as a "walk-through document" without adhering to the required notice of intention procedure. The Board emphasized that due process requires notice and an opportunity to challenge adverse actions before they are issued.

Petition for RemovalOrder Compelling AttendanceMedical ExaminationDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to be HeardPetition to Compel AttendanceAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Walk-through documentWCAB Rule 10789(h)
References
5
Case No. ADJ7233959 ADJ7233792
Regular
Mar 28, 2011

SALVADOR LANDIN vs. STAFFMARK INVESTMENT, CHARTIS SAN DIEGO

This case involves an attorney's petition for reconsideration after an administrative law judge (WCJ) ordered them to pay defendant costs and a $\$500$ sanction. The applicant's attorney argued they did not have adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the sanctions. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the WCJ's orders, and returned the matter for further proceedings because the orders were issued without proper notice and opportunity to present a defense, violating due process. The Board emphasized that sanctions require proper procedure, including a notice of intent and a hearing.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSALVADOR LANDINSTAFFMARK INVESTMENTCHARTIS SAN DIEGOPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONWCJSANCTIONCOSTSLABOR CODE §5813DUE PROCESS
References
0
Case No. 03-04-00072-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2005

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. State

This case addresses whether the State of Texas can collect an administrative penalty from a surety, Hartford Casualty Insurance Company, without providing the surety with notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The primary legal question involves the interpretation of finance code section 153.402(c) and its adherence to procedural due process under the U.S. and Texas Constitutions. Hartford argued that its due process rights were violated because the statute's language, which states the penalty 'may be paid and collected from the proceeds of a bond,' implies discretionary authority, thus necessitating notice. The court agreed, finding that notice and an opportunity to be heard are constitutionally implied into the statute. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling that the State could not collect the administrative penalty from Hartford and also reversed the award of attorney's fees.

Procedural Due ProcessSurety LiabilityAdministrative PenaltiesStatutory ConstructionFinance CodeGovernment CodeAppellate ReviewNotice and HearingConstitutional LawBond Proceeds
References
26
Case No. 01-02-01008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2003

Landmark Chevrolet, Corp. & Bill Heard Chevrolet, Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, 'the dealerships') against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company ('Universal'). The dealerships were sued in two underlying class-action lawsuits by customers alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud due to being charged a 'Consumer Services Fee' for a worthless coupon book. Universal, the dealerships' insurer, declined to defend them under their Statute and Title E&O (STEO) coverage, which only covered claims arising from violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws. Universal then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment in Universal’s favor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the 'eight-corners rule' and concluding that the underlying petitions did not allege facts indicating violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws, and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-Lending LawsTruth-in-Leasing LawsDeclaratory JudgmentClass Action LawsuitsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer Services FeeAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ3974204
Regular
May 05, 2015

MARIA CORTINA vs. EDGEWATER CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL, EVEREST NATIONAL COMPANY

This case involves a defendant's Petition for Reconsideration challenging a WCJ's order to quash deposition subpoenas. The defendant argues they were denied due process as they received no notice of the petition and thus no opportunity to oppose it. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the order was not final but granted removal. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, finding the defendant was improperly denied notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that discovery was stipulated to remain open.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition to QuashDeposition SubpoenaProtective OrderLien ClaimantStipulationDiscoveryDue ProcessNoticeOpportunity to Be Heard
References
7
Case No. ADJ10717926
Regular
Aug 23, 2018

GUADALUPE SEDANO vs. GEO PACIFIC SERVICES, INC., REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INS. CO., ADMINISTERED BY BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the dismissal order because the record lacked proof of service for key notices. Applicant's case was dismissed for failing to object to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, but the Board found the applicant may not have received proper notice of crucial hearings or the dismissal notice itself. Due process requires reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, which the incomplete record here calls into question. Therefore, the case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings to develop the record on service issues.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalNotice of Intention to DismissExcusable NeglectMandatory Settlement ConferenceProof of ServiceDue ProcessGood CauseService of NoticeWCAB Rule 10500
References
12
Case No. ADJ8423237
Regular
Nov 09, 2016

RUBEN SALINAS vs. MAGALY CORPORATION, AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the lien claimant received due process despite the absence of a formal Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions. The Board found that the lien claimant had multiple opportunities to respond to the defendant's detailed petitions for sanctions and costs, including a hearing and subsequent amended filings. Therefore, the lien claimant had adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process requirements.

WCABPetition for Reconsideration DeniedLien ClaimantDue ProcessNotice and Opportunity to be HeardPetition for SanctionsLabor Code § 5813WCJ Report AdoptedSanctions IssueAmended Petition for Sanctions
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. State

Hartford Casualty Insurance Company appeals a district court ruling that allowed the State to collect an administrative penalty from Hartford as a surety for Airport Exchange, without prior notice or an opportunity for a hearing. Airport Exchange, a currency exchange company, failed to transmit customer funds and was assessed a $37,200 administrative penalty. Hartford, as the surety, was not notified of the administrative hearing against Airport Exchange. The court construed finance code section 153.402(c) and held that procedural due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard for a surety before being held liable for an administrative penalty assessed against its principal. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Hartford's due process rights were violated.

Due ProcessAdministrative PenaltySurety LiabilityNotice RequirementHearing OpportunityFinance CodeBond ProceedsStatutory ConstructionTexas LawAppellant Rights
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 4,886 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