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. 01801-9209-OT-00103
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 1994

Petition of Burson

The Attorney General and the State Board of Equalization petitioned the Tennessee Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-5-1514, which permits non-attorney agents to represent taxpayers before boards of equalization. Petitioners argued this statute sanctioned the unauthorized practice of law, infringing upon the judiciary's inherent authority. After appointing a Special Master who found that such services did not constitute the practice of law and upheld the statute, the Supreme Court adopted the Special Master's factual findings. The Court affirmed the Special Master's legal conclusions as modified, ruling that Tenn.Code Ann. § 67-5-1514 does not sanction the unauthorized practice of law and is constitutional, thereby upholding the legislative act.

Unauthorized Practice of LawConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersJudicial AuthorityLegislative AuthorityProperty TaxationTaxpayer RepresentationAdministrative LawNon-attorney AgentsTennessee Constitution
References
31
Case No. ADJ6610233
Regular
Nov 18, 2014

WILLIAM WILLIAMS (Deceased) vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

This case concerns a deceased correctional officer whose dependent sons were awarded death benefits. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration of its prior order requiring an offset for a CalPERS special death benefit received by the decedent's widow, deeming it consistent with precedent and statutory intent. The Board also issued a notice of intention to disallow the applicant's attorney's requested fee increase due to non-compliance with a rule regarding notice to the client of adverse interests. Compliance with this rule is required for the fee increase to be considered by the trial judge.

CalPERSspecial death benefitoffsetdeath benefitsdependent childrenattorney's feesWCAB Rule 10778adverse interestindependent counselPetiton for Reconsideration
References
4
Case No. 16 Civ. 731
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2018

Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor

This case concerns a motion for contempt filed by Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Chipotle Services, LLC against Carmen Alvarez and her attorneys. Chipotle alleged that Alvarez and her legal counsel violated a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the Eastern District of Texas on November 22, 2016, which enjoined the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing a revised overtime regulation (the "Final Rule"). Despite the injunction, Alvarez and her lawyers filed a lawsuit in New Jersey against Chipotle, seeking overtime wages based on the very Final Rule that was enjoined. The Court found that it had jurisdiction over the non-party respondents due to actual notice of the injunction. It determined that Alvarez and her lawyers were in privity with the Department of Labor, whose interests were adequately represented in the original injunction proceeding, and thus were bound by the nationwide injunction. The Court further clarified that the injunction was unambiguous and prohibited any enforcement of the Final Rule, not just by the Department of Labor. Good faith was not a defense to contempt. Consequently, the Court granted Chipotle's motion for contempt, ordering respondents to withdraw their allegations related to the Final Rule and affirming the injunction's broad applicability. Chipotle was also awarded attorneys' fees and expenses for prosecuting the contempt motion.

Contempt of CourtNationwide InjunctionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime RegulationsDepartment of Labor (DOL)PrivityCivil ProcedureDue ProcessAttorneys' FeesJudicial Enforcement
References
52
Case No. ADJ5690219
Regular
Jul 31, 2015

TOM PALLADINO vs. ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award and issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions on applicant's attorney. This action stems from alleged false, misleading, and unsubstantiated allegations made by the attorney in the applicant's Answer to the Petition for Reconsideration. The Board found no evidence to support the claims of intentional delay by the defendant and determined the attorney's statements to be without merit and potentially prejudicial. The attorney and his firm face a $750 sanction unless good cause is shown why it should not be imposed.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardQualified Medical EvaluatorPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813WCAB Rule 10561Attorney Misconduct
References
0
Case No. ADJ7214982
Regular
Jan 06, 2012

JOAQUIN GONZALEZ vs. NFI INDUSTRIES, ZURICH AMERICAN INS. CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant received proper notice of the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN) and was treated within it initially. The Board also initiated sanctions against the applicant's attorney for misrepresenting witness testimony, threatening a $500 penalty unless good cause is shown otherwise. The applicant's arguments regarding non-MPN treatment non-compensability and inadmissibility of reports were rejected based on established precedent and findings of fact. The Board found the attorney's petition frivolous, demonstrating bad faith tactics.

MPNMedical Provider NetworkReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Bad Faith ActionsFrivolousWillful FailureImproper Motive
References
3
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. ADJ9877506
Regular
Oct 30, 2017

MICHAEL WALLACE (Dec'd), ANGELA JOHNSON WALLACE (Wife) vs. LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration, reversing the dismissal of a death benefit claim. This action was taken to issue a notice of intent to impose sanctions and attorney's fees against the applicant's attorneys for alleged bad faith actions. The Board found their petition lacked specificity and cited multiple violations of procedural rules and potential misconduct regarding discovery. A hearing will be held to determine if sanctions are warranted against the named attorneys and their firm.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedPetition to Dismissbad faith actionsfrivolous litigationattorney sanctionsLabor Code section 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
1
Case No. 11-09-00315-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2011

Kelvin E. Louis v. Office of Texas Attorney General Crime Victims' Services Division

Kelvin E. Louis appealed the trial court's decision, which granted the attorney general's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed his claim for crime victim compensation as untimely. Louis argued that the 40-day period for filing a lawsuit for judicial review should start from the date of his amended notice of dissatisfaction, not his initial notice. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the statutory 40-day period commences upon the filing of the initial notice of dissatisfaction. Consequently, Louis's lawsuit was deemed untimely, and the trial court correctly dismissed the case.

Judicial ReviewTimelinessCrime Victim CompensationPlea to JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureNotice of DissatisfactionSubject-Matter JurisdictionFiling DeadlineTexas Court of Appeals
References
15
Case No. 13-07-165-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2007

in Re: Juan Angel Guerra, District and County Attorney for Willacy County, State of Texas

The case involves Juan Angel Guerra, District Attorney of Willacy County, seeking a writ of mandamus against Judge Migdalia Lopez for appointing Gustavo Garza as attorney pro tem to investigate Guerra's alleged misconduct. Guerra argued the judge abused her discretion by not following removal procedures under Chapter 87 of the Texas Local Government Code, appointing an attorney pro tem without his consent, and not providing notice or a hearing. The court overruled most issues but conditionally granted mandamus relief to vacate Garza's appointment due to his conflict of interest and potential role as a witness, particularly concerning allegations of voter fraud in an election where Garza was Guerra's opponent. The court also denied motions for contempt and sanctions.

MandamusAttorney Pro TemJudicial DiscretionConflict of InterestGrand Jury InvestigationDue ProcessOfficial MisconductVoter FraudDisqualification of ProsecutorTexas Law
References
89
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03690
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2016

Anderson v. Armentano

Thomas E. Anderson (the plaintiff) initiated a legal malpractice action against William V. Armentano, Esq., and Grey & Grey, LLP (G&G). The plaintiff alleged injuries from a fall and subsequently retained G&G, among other attorneys, for potential claims. Crucially, G&G failed to file a timely notice of claim against the Town of Oyster Bay. After a proceeding for leave to file a late notice of claim was initially granted by the Supreme Court but later reversed by the Appellate Division, the plaintiff commenced the malpractice suit. G&G moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that their representation was limited solely to the plaintiff's Workers' Compensation claim, supported by a 'Notice of Retainer and Appearance-Additional Attorney.' The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, denied G&G's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the evidence presented by G&G (letters and an affirmation) did not qualify as documentary evidence for dismissal under CPLR 3211(a)(1), and the Workers' Compensation Board Notice did not conclusively refute the plaintiff's claim of broader representation.

Legal MalpracticeDocumentary EvidenceMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)Workers' Compensation ClaimScope of RepresentationAppellate ReviewNotice of ClaimSufficiency of EvidenceLitigation
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 11,972 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