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. 2-06-192-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2007

Jose D. Posada v. Anivar Sarvelio Romero and Envirotec Construction Services, Inc.

Jose D. Posada sued Anivar Sarvelio Romero and Envirotec Construction Services, Inc. for neck and back injuries sustained when a water hose he was using became entangled in Romero's trailer. Envirotec, a nonsubscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, was Posada's employer. Posada incurred over $17,000 in medical expenses. Prior to trial, Envirotec filed a counter-affidavit by Dr. William Mitchell, an orthopedic surgeon, challenging the necessity and reasonableness of much of Posada's medical treatment. The trial court excluded a significant portion of Posada's medical expenses based on this counter-affidavit. A jury subsequently awarded Posada $5,420.00, including lost wages and a portion of past medical expenses. Posada appealed, raising two issues regarding Dr. Mitchell's expert qualifications and the validity of a supplemental report attached to the counter-affidavit. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Dr. Mitchell qualified and the report properly incorporated.

Personal InjuryNegligenceMedical ExpensesExpert WitnessCounter-affidavitCivil ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeOrthopedic SurgeryChiropractic CareExcessive Treatment
References
9
Case No. ADJ2078638
Regular
Jun 07, 2010

Gloria Rivas vs. Posada Whittier/Berg Senior Services, Majestic Insurance Company

The applicant, Gloria Rivas, sought reconsideration of a prior Board decision that overturned a finding deferring determination on her psyche injury claim. The Board found the judge exceeded his authority by deferring the decision after the medical evidence presented was deemed not substantial. The applicant argued procedural errors related to trial scheduling, but the Board found the applicant stipulated to readiness for trial on the psyche injury issue, despite knowing her medical evidence was challenged as inadequate. Therefore, the Board denied reconsideration, reaffirming its decision to rule on the psyche injury claim based on the existing record.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order DenyingGloria RivasPosada WhittierMajestic Insurance CompanyADJ2078638LAO 0887310Opinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. ADJ2078638 (LAO 0887310)
Regular
Mar 15, 2010

GLORIA RIVAS vs. POSADA WHITTIER/BERG SENIOR SERVICES, MAJESTIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a judge's decision to further develop the record on applicant Gloria Rivas' claim of psychological injury. The Board found that the applicant's psychiatric evidence lacked an adequate history, and she was put on notice of this deficiency prior to trial. Therefore, the Board determined she was not entitled to a second opportunity to supplement her case. Consequently, the Board amended the Findings and Award to find that the applicant did not sustain an industrial cumulative trauma injury to her psyche, while upholding the findings of injury to her bilateral upper extremities and neck.

cumulative traumabilateral upper extremitiesneck injurypsyche injuryhousekeepingindustrial injurymedical evidencesupplemental reportDeclaration of ReadinessMandatory Settlement Conference
References
8
Case No. 01-22-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2025

A.H.D. Houston, Inc. D/B/A Centerfolds; Dwg Fm Inc. D/B/A Splendor; D. Houston Inc. D/B/A Treasures; A.H.D. Houston, Inc. D/B/A Centerfolds; And W.L. York, Inc. D/B/A Cover Girls, Incorrectly Named as A.H.D.Houston, Inc. D/B/A Centerfolds; Dwg Fm Inc.,d/B/A Splendor; D. Texas Investments, Inc. D/B/A Treasures; A.H.D. Houston, Inc. D/B/A Treasures; And W.L. York, Inc. D/B/A Treasures v. Jaime Middleton; Cora Skinner; Jamillette Gaxiola, Jennifer Zharinova; Jessica Hinton; Lina Posada; Lucy Pinder; Paola Canas; Sandra Valencia; Tiffany Toth;Cielo Jean Gibson; Maysa Qui; Elizabeth Turner; Emily Sears; Gemma Lee Farrell and Jaclyn Swedberg

This case involves an appeal by adult entertainment establishments from a trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of professional models and social influencers. The models sued for invasion of privacy by misappropriation and negligence, alleging the unauthorized use of their images in the clubs' social media advertisements. The trial court awarded over $1.4 million in damages. The appellate court found that while the misappropriation claim was conclusively established, genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the negligence claims. Additionally, the court determined that the unliquidated damages were improperly awarded via summary judgment. Consequently, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on both liability and damages.

Misappropriation of likenessNegligenceRespondeat superiorSummary judgmentUnliquidated damagesAppellate reviewSocial media advertisingAdult entertainmentProfessional modelsCommercial benefit
References
48
Case No. ADJ2503928 (MON 0358257)
Regular
Sep 16, 2022

STEVEN JIMENEZ vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Whittier Drugs' Petition for Reconsideration to reinstate a dismissed lien. The judge dismissed the lien due to Whittier Drugs' untimely objection to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss and a pattern of late or missed appearances. The WCAB adopted the judge's report, which found Whittier Drugs' objection was significantly delayed and their explanation for missing a hearing, including an unreceived email, was insufficient. Therefore, the petition was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDenialWCJ ReportLien ClaimantWhittier DrugsOrder Dismissing LienTimelinessObjectionDeclaration of Readiness
References
2
Case No. ADJ3797268 (MON 0304228)
Regular
Jun 30, 2016

HECTOR RENTERIA vs. BROWN, BUNYAN, MOON & MOORE, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves two lien claimants, Whittier Drugs and University Imaging Center, seeking reconsideration of an administrative law judge's decision. The Board denied Whittier Drugs' petition, adopting the judge's reasoning. University Imaging Center's petition was dismissed as untimely, as it was filed beyond the 25-day statutory deadline. The Board emphasized that timeliness is jurisdictional and a petition must be *received* by the Board within the allowed period.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantTimelinessJurisdictionalFindings and Order and AwardAdministrative Law JudgeWCAB Rule 10508Maranian v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Whittier Drugs
References
0
Case No. ADJ1075249 (LAO 0884283)
Regular
Jul 31, 2015

ELIZABETH RIOS vs. LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

This case involves a lien claimant, Whittier Drugs, whose lien was dismissed for failure to pay a lien activation fee. Whittier contended they had timely paid the fee, supported by electronic documentation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, finding that although the petition was delayed in reaching the judge, this was due to circumstances beyond the claimant's control. The WCAB rescinded the dismissal order and returned the case for further proceedings, citing *Shipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.* for the exception to the 60-day rule for acting on reconsideration petitions.

Lien Activation FeePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRescindedDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLien ConferenceShipley v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. ADJ3732304 (VNO 0479599) ADJ3954935 (VNO 0479598) ADJ163050 (VNO 0479597)
Regular
Sep 07, 2010

GLORIA REYES vs. WHITTIER UNION HIGH SCHOOL

This case involves prolonged delays in resolving multiple workers' compensation claims for applicant Gloria Reyes, who allegedly sustained several industrial injuries while employed as a campus security guard. Despite numerous mandatory settlement conferences dating back to 2005, the cases have not proceeded to trial. The Appeals Board, despite the employer's untimely petition for removal, removed the cases to itself on its own motion due to the extraordinary delay. The Board ordered the cases returned to the trial level for one final MSC to finalize stipulations and prepare for trial, emphasizing prompt resolution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceIndustrial InjuriesCampus Security GuardStiupulated AwardsUntimely PetitionExtraordinary DelayLabor Code Section 5310WCAB Rule 10843(a)
References
1
Case No. ADJ710353 (VNO 0479290)
Regular
Jun 04, 2012

DIMAS POSADA vs. PARKWOOD LANDSCAPE & MAINTENANCE, EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed untimely. The WCAB determined that the petition was submitted 36 days after the Order Dismissing Lien Claim was served, exceeding the statutory 20-day period plus an additional five days for mail service. As a result, the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of the lien claimant's arguments. The lien claimant had argued the dismissal was due to a missed hearing caused by a file transfer and timely responded to a notice.

WCABADJ710353VNO 0479290Dimas PosadaParkwood Landscape & MaintenanceEverest National Insurance CompanyBel Air Surgical InstituteExpert Medical ReviewOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimNotice of Intention to Dismiss Lien
References
2
Case No. ADJ7541189
Regular
Jul 22, 2013

MARIA DEL CARMEN POSADA vs. MICHAEL JOSEPH FURIE SALON, REPUBLIC INDEMNITY

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing its lien. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition because the claimant was not a party to the case in which the order was issued, therefore it was not aggrieved by the order. The Board noted procedural issues with the original order's service and the judge's subsequent attempt to vacate it. However, the dismissal of the petition for reconsideration stands, and the lien claimant may still pursue its claim in the proper case or file a new lien.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantWCJ OrderLabor Code Section 5900Aggrieved PartyCompromise and ReleaseLien ConferenceADJ NumbersWCABVacate Order
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 13 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