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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. ADJ11629114
Regular
Sep 16, 2022

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and modified a prior decision concerning applicant Kathleen Phillips' industrial hip injury. While affirming the finding that the Qualified Medical Examiner's (PQME) reports lacked substantial medical evidence, the WCAB rescinded the striking of those reports and the PQME's disqualification. The WCAB reasoned that striking reports and disqualifying a PQME requires specific legal grounds not present here, and the determination of substantiality relates to the weight of evidence, not admissibility. The WCAB emphasized that the PQME's reports remain part of the record, with the judge retaining discretion to assign them appropriate weight.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderQualified Medical Examiner (PQME)Substantial Medical EvidenceRemoval StandardThreshold IssueInterlocutory FindingAdmissibility of EvidencePrejudiced
References
5
Case No. ADJ7741851
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Here's a summary of the case in four sentences for a lawyer: The defendant, Warner Brothers, seeks reconsideration of an order compelling payment for a panel Qualified Medical Evaluator's (PQME) second report, arguing it lacked substantial medical evidence. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found no legal basis for the defendant's refusal to pay. The defendant's claims of inaccurate medical history in the PQME's report were unsubstantiated despite multiple opportunities to present evidence. The Board affirmed the obligation to pay the PQME's fees, penalties, and interest.

Panel QMEPetition for ReconsiderationOrder to PayMedical-legal costsSubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code Section 462260-day payment periodPenalty and interestFrivolous actionsDue process
References
6
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. ADJ10298073 (MF) ADJ10298213
Regular
May 10, 2019

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board rescinded the prior Findings and Award, which found no compensable injury based on a PQME's report deemed more convincing than the applicant's treating physicians. The Board found the PQME's report may not have constituted substantial evidence and the applicant's treating physician reports were insufficient. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including obtaining new medical reports, to fully adjudicate the alleged injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorPrimary Treating Physiciancompensable specific injurycumulative traumasubstantial evidencemedical reportingdevelop the record
References
5
Case No. ADJ8040191
Regular
Sep 18, 2013

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The defendant petitioned for removal, seeking to overturn an order vacating submission of the case for further medical record development. The administrative law judge (WCJ) had vacated submission to review PQME reports from Dr. Georgis and Dr. Francisco. The WCJ subsequently took the matter off calendar to allow parties to obtain a supplemental report from the PQME reviewing Dr. Francisco's report. As the issue raised by the defendant's petition is now moot due to the subsequent order, the Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Removal.

Petition for RemovalVacating SubmissionPQMESupplemental ReportWCJOff CalendarMootAppeals BoardWorkers' CompensationCase Development
References
0
Case No. ADJ10084731, ADJ10084732
Regular
Nov 27, 2017

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

This case involved the striking of a Qualified Medical Evaluator's (PQME) report due to concerns of racial or ethnic bias. The WCJ found the PQME's deposition testimony, where she referred to the applicant's "Negro blood" and linked it to her assessment of his muscle tone and strength, indicated bias. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed this decision, agreeing that such statements suggested reliance on stereotypes and improper medical conclusions. Consequently, the PQME's report was deemed not substantial evidence and was struck, with a new medical evaluation ordered.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorRacial BiasEthnic BiasSubstantial EvidenceStriking ReportNew PanelNeurologyIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. ADJ7587936
Regular
Oct 16, 2012

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration. They granted removal on their own motion, rescinded the WCJ's order striking the PQME's report, and returned the matter for further development of the record. This action was taken because the record was unclear as to who performed diagnostic testing, potentially violating Labor Code section 4628. The Board directed parties to first obtain a supplemental report from the PQME to clarify this issue.

WCABPQMEAMEIMELabor Code 4628Nerve Conduction StudyMedical Record DevelopmentPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalFindings Order Opinion
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,875 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