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. 04-15-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2015

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves an interlocutory appeal by Cash Biz, LP and its affiliates against Hiawatha Henry and other appellees. Cash Biz is challenging a trial court's order denying its motion to compel arbitration and enforce a class action waiver. The appellees had sued Cash Biz for malicious prosecution, fraud, and statutory violations after Cash Biz filed criminal charges against them related to defaulted loan contracts. The trial court ruled that Cash Biz's actions in using the criminal justice system to collect a civil debt constituted a waiver of its right to arbitrate and that the arbitration clauses were inapplicable. Cash Biz argues that the appellees' claims fall within the broad scope of their arbitration agreements and that merely filing criminal complaints does not legally constitute a 'substantial invocation of the judicial process' to waive arbitration.

ArbitrationClass Action WaiverMalicious ProsecutionFraudDebt CollectionLoan ContractsTexas Arbitration ActFederal Arbitration ActWaiver of ArbitrationInterlocutory Appeal
References
0
Case No. 03-04-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2005

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

This case involves an appeal by Gwen Cash against a final divorce decree. She argued that the written order incorrectly varied from a prior oral ruling concerning the division of her former husband's disability benefits, community tax obligations, and any undisclosed property. Mrs. Cash requested that the written order be reformed to align with the more favorable oral pronouncement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial court had plenary power to modify its judgment and did not abuse its discretion in the property division, especially since the written decree was a result of subsequent negotiations between the parties.

Divorce DecreeProperty DivisionOral RulingWritten OrderPlenary PowerAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewCommunity PropertyDisability BenefitsTax Obligations
References
8
Case No. 3-90-002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1991

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

Opal Petty, through her next friends, sued the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for personal injuries caused by employee negligence, recovering a $250,000 judgment. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals, Third District of Texas, addressed whether medical records and plans constituted 'tangible personal property' under the Texas Tort Claims Act, if the Department had actual notice of the injury, and the constitutionality of the statutory damages cap and pre-judgment interest. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the items were tangible property, actual notice was met, and the damage limit was constitutional. Ms. Petty's cross-points regarding additional damages and pre-judgment interest were overruled.

Governmental immunityTexas Tort Claims ActPersonal injuryNegligenceMental health careMental retardationTangible propertyActual noticeFalse imprisonmentDamages limitation
References
45
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05543 [163 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2018

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

This appeal concerns whether a quarter-mile section of a rural roadway, known as the 'hairpin,' located on property held by Carolee Petti, as executor, constitutes a public highway by use. The Towns of Lexington and Shandaken had consistently plowed and maintained the road since 2000, and potentially earlier, leading to increased public traffic. Petti initiated an action under RPAPL article 15 to quiet title, challenging the public's right of access. The Supreme Court found in favor of the defendants, determining that the road, including the hairpin, had been continuously used by the public and maintained by the Towns for the requisite 10-year statutory period. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, upholding the lower court's factual findings and credibility determinations, concluding that a preponderance of evidence supported the road's designation as a public highway.

public accessrural roadwayquiet titlehighway by usestatutory periodmunicipal maintenancecredibility assessmentreal property lawcivil procedureappellate review
References
23
Case No. 2016-06-0841
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2016

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Thomas Petty, an employee, sustained head and shoulder injuries after an object fell on him at work. While the claim was initially accepted, subsequent medical evaluations led authorized physicians to conclude no further treatment was needed, prompting the employer to deny additional requests. The trial court upheld this denial, citing insufficient evidence from Petty to prove the necessity of further treatment. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in denying medical benefits for alleged foot, knee, head, neck, or shoulder injuries. The Board also clarified the statutory interpretation regarding second opinions on surgery and diagnosis, emphasizing the requirement of a prior recommendation for surgery.

Workers' Compensation AppealsExpedited HearingHead InjuryShoulder InjuryMalingeringMaximum Medical ImprovementCausationMedical NecessitySecond Opinion StatuteLabral Tear
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00187 [179 AD3d 1228]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The case, Matter of Reardon v Global Cash Card, Inc., involves an appeal concerning the validity of 12 NYCRR part 192, regulations governing wage payment methods, including payroll debit cards, adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Global Cash Card, Inc., a payroll debit card service provider, challenged these regulations, leading to their revocation by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The Commissioner then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the IBA's determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the Commissioner acted within her delegated legislative authority in promulgating the regulations, despite modifying the order to strike certain extraneous proof.

Labor LawWage PaymentPayroll Debit CardsAdministrative RegulationsRule-making AuthorityIndustrial Board of Appeals (IBA)CPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCommissioner of Labor
References
15
Case No. W2016-02288-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2017

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

This case involves an appeal concerning the application of the doctrine of res judicata. Kevin Cash filed a lawsuit against his former employer, Turner Holdings LLC a/k/a Prairie Farms Dairy Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The initial lawsuit was dismissed 'in its entirety' by the trial court. Cash subsequently filed a second lawsuit asserting the same causes of action, but the trial court granted summary judgment to Turner Holdings, finding the claims barred by res judicata due to the prior dismissal being a final adjudication on the merits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the November 20, 2014, dismissal order was a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes.

Res JudicataClaim PreclusionSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissRetaliatory DischargeFraudIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewFinal Judgment
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiffs (Debra Cash et al.) sued Conn Appliances, Inc., and its subsidiaries, alleging improper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendants moved for summary judgment on overtime calculation, limitations, and damages, while plaintiffs sought to proceed as a FLSA collective action. The court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion regarding the calculation of overtime compensation, finding that Conn Appliances' use of the fluctuating workweek method was permissible. Consequently, the defendants' motion on limitations and damages was deemed moot. The plaintiffs' motion for a FLSA collective action was denied to the extent it relied on arguments opposing summary judgment, with a decision deferred on the inclusion of bonuses and incentives in regular rate computations.

FLSAOvertime CompensationSummary JudgmentCollective ActionFluctuating Workweek MethodMinimum Wage ViolationsWage and Hour DivisionSalary Basis TestGood Faith DefenseLiquidated Damages
References
90
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07057
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Richard Petti, a retired road construction worker, sought workers' compensation benefits for binaural hearing loss attributed to job-related noise exposure. The employer and carrier contested the claim. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) disallowed the claim and precluded the claimant's physician's medical report after finding improper ex parte verbal communications between claimant's counsel and the physician, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 13-a (6) and Board Release Subject No. 046-124. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, determining the communication was "suggestive." The Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld the Board's decision, concluding that the Board acted within its discretion to preclude the medical report and that without it, the claimant failed to provide credible medical evidence of a causally related occupational disease, thus affirming the disallowance of the claim.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' Compensation BenefitsEx Parte CommunicationMedical Report PreclusionCausal RelationWorkers' Compensation Law § 13-a(6)Board DiscretionAppellate ReviewEmployer Controverted ClaimClaim Disallowance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff Amos Jock was injured while fabricating a concrete septic tank at his workplace, falling from a steel mold. He, along with his wife, sued his employer Richard Van Petty, Van Petty Excavating, Inc., and building owner Donald L. Fien, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied summary judgment, finding issues of fact, but the Appellate Court disagreed. The Appellate Court held that Mr. Jock was engaged in a normal manufacturing process, not protected building construction or related activities under the cited Labor Law sections. Consequently, his causes of action were dismissed, and the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentBuilding ConstructionManufacturing ProcessSeptic Tank FabricationWorker ProtectionAppellate ReviewScope of Employment
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 210 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