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. ADJ10268949
Regular
Nov 23, 2016

ELOY DELA TORRE FERNANDEZ vs. MERCHANT'S LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that barred the applicant's claim due to a post-termination filing defense. The applicant claimed exceptions to this defense, arguing he received pre-termination treatment and that his date of injury, under Labor Code § 5412, occurred after his termination. The WCAB found insufficient evidence to decide the pre-termination treatment exception and remanded the case to clarify the applicant's date of injury under § 5412, as this date's post-termination status would be an exception to the defense. The prior order was rescinded and the case returned for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination DefenseCumulative InjuryDate of InjurySection 5412Compensable DisabilityTrier of Fact
References
3
Case No. 03-14-00726-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2014

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center, L.P. D/B/A San Marcos Treatment Center v. Veronica Payton

Texas San Marcos Treatment Center appeals the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss Veronica Payton's health care liability claim. Payton alleged negligence after being assaulted by a patient at the treatment center. The appellant argues that the expert report provided by Dr. William H. Reid is deficient, lacking factual support and specificity concerning the standard of care, its breach, and causation, as required by Chapter 74 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion by finding the report adequate and requests dismissal of the claims.

Medical MalpracticeExpert ReportMotion to DismissAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CareBreach of DutyCausationHealth Care Liability ClaimPsychiatric FacilityEmployee Assault
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. ADJ2728533 (VNO 0389518) ADJ2462440 (VNO 0193190)
Regular
Jul 27, 2015

ALICIA VALENZUELA vs. LEATHERCRAFT TECHNOLOGIES dba ALEXANDER HANDBAGS, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, c/o BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE CO., CONSTITUTION STATE SERVICE CO.

This case concerns a defendant's petition for reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision regarding a lien claim for medical treatment reimbursement. The arbitrator found the defendant responsible for 80% of low back treatment costs but not kidney or psyche treatment, despite the applicant's injuries being attributed to "pre-existing factors." The defendant argued it was denied due process and that the arbitrator erred in terminating its lien rights based on stipulations. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant had a fair hearing and failed to meet its burden of proof that the "pre-existing factors" included a prior 1987 injury, with medical evidence supporting the arbitrator's conclusion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLienMedical TreatmentPre-existing FactorsCumulative InjurySpecific InjuryDue ProcessFair HearingBurden of Proof
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1948

Dallas Railway & Terminal Co. v. Orr

Mrs. Orr (plaintiff) sued Dallas Railway & Terminal Company (defendant) for personal injuries sustained in a collision between her automobile and the defendant's motor bus in Dallas on July 25, 1943. She recovered $10,000.00 in a lower court, which was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, complaining about the trial court's refusal to include a special instruction regarding pre-existing conditions and the refusal to send photographs to the jury. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' decision, finding that the evidence of prior infirmities was insufficient to warrant the requested special instruction. Additionally, the error in not sending the photographs to the jury was deemed harmless as they were merely cumulative evidence of substantially undisputed facts.

Personal InjuryAutomobile AccidentMotor BusNegligenceDamagesPre-existing ConditionsJury InstructionsProximate CauseAppellate ReviewHarmless Error
References
4
Case No. 13-05-055-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2006

Scott Cerre v. Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP

Scott Cerre, an employee of Odfjell Terminals (Houston) LP, was injured on the job and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. He was later terminated under Odfjell's absence-control policy after taking a six-month leave of absence. Cerre sued Odfjell, alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination in violation of chapter 451 of the Texas Labor Code. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Odfjell. On appeal, Cerre contended that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on both his discrimination and retaliatory discharge claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Odfjell successfully negated elements of the discrimination claim and that Cerre's termination was due to a uniformly enforced absence-control policy, not retaliation.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscrimination ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Labor Code Chapter 451Absence Control PolicyEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewCausal ConnectionHarassment
References
18
Case No. 2019-06-1189
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2019

Purvis, Sonia v. Clarksville Montgomery County CAA

Sonia Purvis, an employee, filed a request for temporary disability and reinstatement of medical benefits after her employer, Clarksville Montgomery County Community Action Agency (CMCCAA), terminated them. CMCCAA justified the termination due to Ms. Purvis's refusal to sign medical record releases from previous work-related accidents and a pre-existing condition (lupus), which raised questions about the causation of her current need for treatment. The Court found that Ms. Purvis failed to meet her burden of proof by not providing a medical opinion establishing that her current need for treatment primarily stemmed from her 2018 workplace accident. Therefore, the Court concluded that CMCCAA's decision to suspend benefits was reasonable and denied Ms. Purvis's requests for temporary disability and reinstatement of medical benefits.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCausationMedical RecordsExpedited HearingRefusal to CooperatePrior InjuryPre-existing ConditionTennessee
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1994

In re the Guardianship & Custody of Angela Marie N.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of disposition in Family Court, New York County, which terminated a respondent's parental rights. The termination was based on a finding of mental illness, supported by extensive unrefuted evidence including the respondent's chronic degenerating mental condition, frequent hospitalizations, and failure to adhere to any treatment plan. A court-appointed psychiatrist concluded there was no possibility of improvement in the foreseeable future, confirming the respondent's inability to provide adequate care for her children. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order, finding clear and convincing evidence for the termination and that the disposition, committing guardianship to the petitioner, was in the children's best interests. Furthermore, the court found no ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that strategic decisions should not be reevaluated with hindsight.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessChild WelfareGuardianshipIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildSocial Services Law
References
7
Case No. NO. 03-09-00088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2013

Barbara J. Booker v. City of Austin

Barbara J. Booker, a probationary firefighter with the City of Austin (AFD), was terminated due to alleged performance deficiencies. She subsequently sued the City under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA), asserting claims of racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and retaliation. The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Booker's claims. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that Booker failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her retaliation claims and any pre-termination discriminatory acts. For her job discrimination claims related to termination, the court found insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment or to demonstrate that the City's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination (poor performance) was pretextual, especially considering the 'same-actor inference' where the same chief hired and fired her.

Probationary FirefighterEmployment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentTCHRADisparate TreatmentAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionSame-Actor Inference
References
39
Case No. VNO 487026
Regular
Jul 08, 2008

Frank Lujan vs. CG MILLER INC., Republic Indemnity Company of California

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the disallowance of a $\$ 12,547.06$ lien for medical treatment expenses. This decision was based on the finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment, as the claim was filed after the applicant's termination and no exceptions under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) were met. The employer lacked prior notice of the injury, and there was insufficient evidence of pre-termination medical records or an injury occurring after notice of termination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeIndustrial InjuryLow BackMover/PackerSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,881 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