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. ADJ8217179
Regular
Jun 18, 2012

CYNTHIA BRUNNEMER vs. DFA OF CALIFORNIA, LIBERTY MUTUAL

Applicant's attorney filed a petition that was initially miscaptioned as a "Petition for Disqualification," causing confusion for the Workers' Compensation Judge. The applicant later amended the petition to clarify it sought only an "automatic reassignment" (peremptory challenge) of the judge, not disqualification. The Appeals Board dismissed the disqualification portion and remanded the reassignment petition for determination by the presiding judge or a designee. The Board cautioned the attorney about the wasted time and resources due to the imprecise initial filing.

Petition for DisqualificationAutomatic ReassignmentWCJWCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452Peremptory ChallengePresiding WCJReport and RecommendationLab. Code § 5311Cal. Code Regs. tit. 8 § 10452
References
5
Case No. ADJ7393344
Regular
Jun 19, 2012

CONNIE WHITTED vs. DHL ENTERPRISES LLC BRIGHT STAR HEALTH CARE, CHARTIS

This case concerns a petition initially filed as a "Petition for Disqualification and Reassignment," which was later amended to solely seek automatic reassignment of the judge under WCAB Rule 10453. The Appeals Board dismissed the disqualification aspect, attributing the confusion to the applicant's attorney's imprecise captioning. While the petition for automatic reassignment is remanded for determination by the presiding judge, the Board notes it was filed before a trial or expedited hearing, making its denial likely. The Board cautioned the attorney about wasted resources and the potential for future sanctions due to careless pleading.

WCAB Rule 10453WCAB Rule 10452peremptory challengedisqualificationautomatic reassignmentpresiding judgePetition for Disqualificationamended petitionJudge Brigham JonesReport and Recommendation
References
6
Case No. 07-08-0388-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2009

Elizabeth Overstreet v. Judge Bradley S. Underwood, Individually and in His Capacity as Judge of the 364th Judicial District, Lubbock County, Texas

Elizabeth Overstreet appealed the trial court's decision regarding her employment termination and defamation claims against Judge Bradley Underwood. Overstreet, a Court Coordinator for the 364th District Court, was terminated after reporting an incident of inappropriate touching and subsequently not returning to her position. She filed complaints with the Texas Workforce Commission-Civil Rights Division, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the lawsuit was timely filed under the Texas Labor Code and considered the defamation claim. The court concluded that Overstreet's suit was not timely filed, as the first right-to-sue notice was controlling, and affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment on the defamation claim, finding no defamatory statement was published.

Employment TerminationRetaliation ClaimDefamation LawsuitSummary Judgment AppealJurisdictional PleaStatute of LimitationsTexas Labor CodeCivil Rights ActCourt CoordinatorJudicial Capacity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves two related limitation proceedings (the "APL Action" and the "Hanjin Action") arising from a vessel collision in Korean waters between the President Washington (owned by American President Lines, Ltd. - APL) and the Hanjin Hong Kong (chartered by Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. and owned by Highlight Navigation Corporation). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, presided by Judge SWEET, addressed motions concerning forum non conveniens, transfer of venue, and choice of law. The Court granted APL's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Hanjin's affirmative defenses regarding forum non conveniens and venue transfer in the APL Action, and striking (with leave to replead) Hanjin's defense concerning Korean law. Concurrently, the Court denied Hanjin's motion to dismiss the Hanjin Action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that the balance of private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal to a foreign forum or transfer to the Western District of Washington.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawVessel CollisionLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensTransfer of VenueChoice of LawCargo ClaimsInternational ShippingKorean Law
References
32
Case No. ADJ1132003 (LBO 0329486)
Regular
Aug 19, 2013

NICOLE R. CHEATHAM vs. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER, LOMA LINDA HOME CARE

The Appeals Board granted the Defendant's Petition for Removal to overturn an Order that denied its request for automatic reassignment of the case. The Board found that the Presiding Judge erred by denying reassignment based on a prior award issued by Judge Pusey in 2003, as Judge Pusey had not been assigned as the trial judge at that time. The Appeals Board granted the reassignment and ordered the expedited hearing be set before a judge other than Judge Pusey. This decision recognizes the defendant's statutory right to automatic reassignment when a new trial date is set before a judge who has not previously presided over a trial in the matter.

Petition for RemovalAutomatic ReassignmentOrder Denying PetitionExpedited HearingStipulations With Request for AwardCumulative Trauma InjuryPetition to Re-openDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLabor Code section 5310Cal. Code Regs.
References
1
Case No. 01-15-00583-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2015

the Honorable Mark Henry, County Judge of Galveston County v. the Honorable Lonnie Cox, Judge of the 56th District Court of Galveston County

This interlocutory appeal concerns a temporary injunction obtained by District Court Judge Lonnie Cox on behalf of Ms. Bonita Quiroga against County Judge Mark Henry of Galveston County. The injunction directed Judge Henry to reinstate Ms. Quiroga's employment as court administrator with a salary of $113,000. The core dispute is over the salary range for the court administrator position, with Judge Cox proposing $85,000-$120,000 and the Commissioners Court setting it at $57,705-$63,695 due to decreased responsibilities. The Appellant argues that new amendments to Section 75.401 of the Government Code, effective September 1, 2015, render the temporary injunction moot. The new statute grants exclusive power to the judges served to appoint the court administrator and to the Commissioners Court to set the salary range, nullifying the injunction's directives. Therefore, the Appellant requests the Court of Appeals to set aside the temporary injunction and dismiss the underlying injunction suit.

Interlocutory AppealTemporary InjunctionMootnessGovernment CodeCourt AdministratorSalary DisputeGalveston CountyCommissioners CourtAppellate ProcedureDismissal
References
3
Case No. ADJ7825518
Regular
Nov 05, 2013

MICHELLE WELLS vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order changes the venue for Michelle Wells' case from the Eureka District Office to the Sacramento District Office. The transfer is necessary because the Presiding Judge in Eureka has recused herself and there are no other judges available there. The order also directs the Sacramento Presiding Judge to assign the case to a judge who has no prior working relationship with the applicant.

WCABLegally UninsuredAdjusting AgencyOrder Changing VenuePresiding Workers' Compensation JudgeRecusedAppeals Board Rule 10453Sacramento District OfficeAssignmentApplicant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dal-Briar Corp. v. Baskette

Dal-Briar Corporation, the Relator, filed a mandamus action against Judges Baskette, Callan, and Paxson, seeking to deconsolidate three underlying lawsuits. The original cases involved former employees Margie Garcia, Manuel Apodaca, and David Durbin suing Dal-Briar for discriminatory termination under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act after filing claims. Dal-Briar contended that despite common legal questions, the distinct factual scenarios and defensive strategies in each employee's case would lead to substantial jury confusion and prejudice if consolidated. The court, applying Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 174(a), balanced judicial economy against the risk of an unfair outcome. It concluded that the potential for prejudice and confusion outweighed the convenience of consolidation, conditionally granting the writ of mandamus and directing the respondent judges to vacate the consolidation order due to the lack of an adequate remedy at law for Dal-Briar.

Mandamus ActionConsolidation of ActionsTexas Workers' Compensation ActAbuse of DiscretionJury ConfusionPrejudiceJudicial EconomyRules of Civil ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationDeconsolidation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Milan Express Co. v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Co.

The Chief Judge reviewed objections to a Magistrate Judge's order concerning arbitration and venue. The Magistrate Judge had previously granted Milan Express Co., Inc.'s motion to stop arbitration and denied Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company, Inc.'s motions to compel arbitration and transfer venue. The Chief Judge conducted a de novo review and upheld the Magistrate Judge's findings. The arbitration clause was deemed invalid under Nebraska law, as the Reinsurance Participation Agreement (RPA) related to an insurance policy but did not fall under the exception for contracts between insurance companies. The motion to transfer venue was also denied, with the court emphasizing the convenience of witnesses in Tennessee over the contractual forum-selection clause. The court ultimately adopted the magistrate judge's decisions.

Arbitration Agreement ValidityForum Selection Clause EnforceabilityMotion to Compel ArbitrationMotion to Stay ArbitrationTransfer of VenueNebraska Statutory InterpretationFederal Arbitration Act ApplicationReinsurance Contract AnalysisEquitable Estoppel DoctrineWaiver of Rights
References
49
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00923 [180 AD3d 446]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2020

Denson v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc.

Jessica Denson, a former employee of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and hostile work environment, which led to the campaign initiating arbitration for alleged breaches of her non-disclosure and non-disparagement agreement (NDA). The arbitrator issued awards against Denson for disclosing confidential information in a federal action challenging the NDA and for statements on social media. The Supreme Court affirmed these awards, but the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the judgment and vacated the arbitration awards. The appellate court ruled that penalizing Denson for statements made in a judicial proceeding violated strong public policy protecting freedom of expression in court. Furthermore, the arbitrator exceeded his authority by considering events that occurred after the initial demand for arbitration, making the entire award invalid.

Arbitration award vacaturNon-disclosure agreement (NDA)Non-disparagement agreementPublic policyArbitrator authorityJudicial privilegeAppellate reviewEmployment disputeSex discriminationHostile work environment
References
39
Showing 1-10 of 9,869 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