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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. 08-20-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Eduardo A. Jonson v. Long Duong and Remy Grousson

Eduardo A. Jonson appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to file an out-of-time amended petition and the dismissal of his lawsuit against Long Duong and Remy Grousson. Jonson, a pro se litigant, raised three issues on appeal: denial of his rights as a pro se litigant, the trial judge's failure to recuse herself, and the judges' failure to adequately perform their duties. The Court of Appeals found Jonson waived his first and third issues due to inadequate briefing. His second issue regarding recusal was also waived for not filing a timely motion. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that pro se litigants are not exempt from procedural rules and dissatisfaction with rulings does not establish bias for recusal.

Pro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewPleading DefectsSpecial ExceptionsMotion to DismissRecusal MotionJudicial BiasWaiver of IssuesProcedural RulesBusiness Partnership Dispute
References
23
Case No. ADJ1122093 (SAC 0279029) ADJ988134 (SAC 0267349)
Regular
Nov 20, 2018

BOBBIE SANDERS vs. EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant Bobbie Sanders, previously declared a vexatious litigant under Rule 10782, filed a Petition for Removal without court approval. Rule 10782 requires pre-filing authorization for pro se litigants, with exceptions for licensed attorneys. The Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal because there was no significant change in circumstances or new evidence to warrant re-litigation of previously determined issues. Therefore, the document was not accepted for filing.

Vexatious litigantpre-filing orderAppeals Board Rule 10782Petition for Removalin pro perworkers' compensationEmployment Development DepartmentState Compensation Insurance FundADJ1122093ADJ988134
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Springer v. Partners in Care

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought a lawsuit against Partners in Care under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging gender/sex discrimination following his termination. The defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's complaint was barred by the doctrine of laches due to an over ten-year delay in obtaining a right-to-sue notice from the EEOC, and that the EEOC had exceeded its authority. The plaintiff contended he made intermittent inquiries about his case status during this period. The court denied the defendant's motions, reasoning that the plaintiff's delay was not unreasonable given his pro se status and his alleged attempts to follow up. Furthermore, the court found the defendant had not adequately demonstrated prejudice, citing the EEOC's record-keeping regulations and the unconscionable nature of penalizing a pro se litigant for administrative inefficiencies.

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationLachesSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissEEOCRight-to-Sue LetterPro Se Litigant
References
23
Case No. 06-01-00127-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 2002

Juan A. Escobedo v. Texas Workers` Compensation Commission

Juan Escobedo appealed the trial court's judgment granting a summary judgment to St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Escobedo had filed a pro se original petition seeking to set aside a determination of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) regarding a five percent impairment rating for his right ankle injury. St. Paul moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of evidence from Escobedo and that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations due to untimely filing and service. The trial court granted St. Paul's motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that pro se litigants are subject to the same procedural standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all procedural rules, thus rejecting Escobedo's argument concerning his pro se status and language barrier.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigantProcedural RulesAppellate ReviewStatute of LimitationsImpairment RatingTexas LawLanguage BarrierEvidence Sufficiency
References
12
Case No. 2020-03-0905
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2022

Dickerson, Gary v. Dominion Development Group, LLC

Gary Dickerson, an employee-appellant, sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining multiple injuries in a motor vehicle accident while allegedly performing errands for his employer, Dominion Development Group, LLC. The trial court initially denied benefits, concluding that Dickerson failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the issues of timely notice, work-relatedness of injuries, or that the injuries occurred within the course and scope of his employment. Dickerson appealed this interlocutory decision to the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision and remanded the case, primarily due to Dickerson's failure, as a pro se litigant, to provide a transcript of the hearing, articulate specific appellate issues, or present supporting legal authority. The Board emphasized that pro se litigants must still adhere to substantive and procedural rules.

Workers' CompensationInterlocutory AppealDenial of BenefitsTimely NoticeWork-Related InjuryCourse and Scope of EmploymentPro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewTranscript AbsenceLack of Legal Argument
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Teamsters Local 210

Pro se plaintiffs, including Houston, filed a lawsuit against an ERISA-regulated fund seeking severance pay. They argued they were entitled to benefits because their termination occurred 'within one year of' their employer ceasing operations, interpreting the phrase to include the period before cessation. The defendants contended this phrase referred only to the period after cessation and also argued that all plaintiffs, except Houston, failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the non-Houston plaintiffs failed to exhaust remedies. For Houston's claim, the court found the plan language unambiguously supported the defendants' prospective interpretation of the 'within one year of' clause. Alternatively, even if ambiguous, the plan granted the defendants discretionary authority, and their consistent interpretation was deemed rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

ERISA BenefitsSeverance Pay DisputePlan InterpretationSummary Plan Description (SPD)Administrative ExhaustionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDiscretionary AuthorityEmployer CessationPro Se LitigantsMotion for Summary Judgment
References
32
Case No. PD-1050-14
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2015

Martin, Peter James

Peter James Martin, proceeding pro-se, filed a motion for rehearing following the denial of his petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on February 4, 2015. Martin was convicted of aggravated assault against a public servant, evading arrest, altering/destroying evidence, and possession of a controlled substance. His motion primarily argues for legally insufficient evidence of intent, knowledge, and causation regarding the aggravated assault charge, citing the deputy's alleged actions of running into the path of Martin's car, thus causing the 'threat' himself. Additionally, Martin contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to issues with chosen counsel and the unconstitutional abortion of a plea bargain process, where a judge's comments allegedly coerced him into waiving his right to chosen counsel and rejecting a 35-year plea offer unknowingly. The motion also details procedural issues regarding the confiscation of his legal documents by prison officials, which he claims hindered his ability to file a meritorious petition.

Criminal LawAggravated Assault Public ServantEvading ArrestLegal Insufficiency EvidenceConcurrent CausationRight to CounselPlea BargainIneffective Assistance of CounselDue ProcessFourth Amendment
References
39
Case No. ll-O4-O4686-CR-(l)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2015

Beeson, Daryl Lee

Daryl Lee Beeson, proceeding pro se, filed an objection to the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, citing a delay in receiving the lower court's documents. He alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to investigate the complainant's "Multiple Personalities" and for the denial of his motion for continuance. Beeson also claims his counsel inadequately impeached a key state witness. He requests the Court of Criminal Appeals to mandate an evidentiary hearing or secure affidavits from trial counsel to address these critical issues related to his conviction for aggravated sexual assault.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselDue ProcessHabeas CorpusEvidentiary HearingMultiple Personality DisorderWitness ImpeachmentContinuance DenialAggravated Sexual AssaultJury InstructionsConfrontation Clause
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,798 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