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. M2021-01141-SC-R3-BP
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2022

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case involves an appeal to the Supreme Court of Tennessee concerning attorney Candes Vonniest Prewitt's professional misconduct. A hearing panel found Prewitt violated multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including failures in expert disclosures, conflicts of interest due to a romantic relationship with her client, and improper withdrawal from representation. The Chancery Court affirmed these findings and the imposed sanctions, which included a thirty-day suspension, additional ethics education, and a practice monitor. The Supreme Court of Tennessee subsequently affirmed the decisions of both the hearing panel and the trial court, upholding the findings of misconduct and the disciplinary actions.

Attorney DisciplineProfessional MisconductConflict of InterestRules of Professional ConductAttorney CompetenceDiligenceWithdrawal from RepresentationExpert DisclosureLegal EthicsSanctions
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This declaratory judgment action involves American Home Assurance Company seeking to limit its liability under professional liability policies issued to social workers Rory M. McDonald and Helene Ina Anisfeld, who are defendants in an underlying malpractice action brought by Randy Kamhi. Kamhi alleges sexual misconduct and professional negligence against McDonald, and vicarious liability and direct negligence against Anisfeld as McDonald's partner. American Home sought summary judgment to limit indemnification to $25,000 for sexual misconduct claims and punitive damages. The court granted summary judgment in part, affirming the $25,000 limit for McDonald's sexual misconduct and for punitive damages for both McDonald and Anisfeld. However, the court denied the request to terminate American Home's duty to defend McDonald upon exhausting the $25,000 limit and granted Kamhi's cross-motion to stay further summary judgment applications until discovery in the underlying action is complete. Crucially, the court found that extending the sexual misconduct coverage limit to non-sexual malpractice claims violates New York public policy.

Professional Liability InsuranceSexual MisconductInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionPublic Policy ArgumentTherapist MalpracticeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyUnconscionability Claim
References
22
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

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

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01193 [214 AD3d 735]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2023

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

This case concerns a dispute between the Long Beach Professional Firefighters Association (union) and the City of Long Beach regarding the terms of employment for paramedics. The City had unilaterally set these terms, leading the union to file a grievance and subsequently seek arbitration. The arbitrator found that the City violated the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award, which the City appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the City failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to vacate the arbitration award on grounds of irrationality, manifest disregard of law, arbitrator misconduct, or violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardCPLR Article 75 ProceedingJudicial Review of ArbitrationPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawAppellate ReviewMunicipal EmploymentParamedicsGrievance
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This opinion addresses an appeal by Robert Philip Rayburn, Sr., an attorney, from a judgment affirming his disbarment by a hearing panel of the Board of Professional Responsibility. Rayburn was accused of multiple instances of professional misconduct, including commingling client funds and failing to timely disburse settlement proceeds to clients like Lloyd Swicegood, Michael Rice, Tina L. Williams, and DeRenda K. Kirby. The Supreme Court affirmed the disbarment, ruling that the hearing panel retained jurisdiction to modify and ultimately vacate Rayburn's conditional guilty plea. Furthermore, while Rayburn was entitled to a voluntary nonsuit of his petition for writ of certiorari in the trial court, the principles of sovereign immunity prevented the application of the one-year savings statute, thereby barring any timely refiling of his appeal and leading to its dismissal. The Court found disbarment appropriate due to Rayburn's knowing misconduct, pattern of neglect, and obstruction of disciplinary proceedings.

Attorney DisciplineDisbarmentProfessional MisconductClient FundsCommingling FundsVoluntary NonsuitSovereign ImmunityAppellate ProcedureRules of Civil ProcedureRules of Professional Conduct
References
12
Case No. 2019-02-0551
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2021

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves Codi McClain, son of deceased employee David Maples, seeking death benefits from Professional Personnel Services and American Zurich. Mr. Maples died on December 16, 2017, after a work-related fall. Although funeral expenses were voluntarily paid by Professional Personnel, the claim for death benefits was later denied by American Zurich. McClain filed a Petition for Benefit Determination on November 18, 2019, almost two years after Mr. Maples's death. Professional Personnel Services filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that McClain failed to file within the one-year statute of limitations. The Court determined that McClain's reason for the late filing (difficulty hiring an attorney) was insufficient to toll the statute. Consequently, the Court granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing McClain's claim with prejudice.

Summary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDeath BenefitsTimeliness of FilingWorkers' Compensation ClaimMotion to DismissLegal ProcedureAppellate RightsCourt of Workers’ Compensation ClaimsPrejudice Dismissal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The Professional Career Center, Inc., offering real estate education, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's assessment for additional unemployment insurance contributions. The assessment stemmed from a determination that the Center's teachers were employees, not independent contractors. Despite a consulting agreement, the court found substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. This was based on the Center's control over hiring, payment, quality, student recruitment, tuition, scheduling, and curriculum adherence. The court concluded that these factors supported the finding, affirming the decision against Professional Career Center, Inc.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorProfessional EducationReal Estate LicensingLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContributionsAudit
References
3
Case No. 03-14-00552-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2015

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

Appellant Raghunath Dass, PE, appeals sanctions imposed by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers (TBPE) for alleged violations of the Texas Engineering Practices Act. Dass asserts the TBPE lacked jurisdiction over the case facts and authority to amend its final order while under judicial review. He argues that the TBPE's amended final order is void because the agency modified a decision during judicial review. Additionally, Dass contends the TBPE lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to regulate construction material testing (CMT), which he argues is not "professional engineering." He also challenges the TBPE's authority to restrict competitive bidding for CMT and asserts that the 2005/2009 CME Policy Advisory Opinion, relied upon by the Board, is an invalid and unenforceable standard not promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act. Finally, Dass argues that even if the testing was Construction Materials Engineering (CME), Naismith Engineering, not Dass, was the supervising engineer for the project.

Engineering RegulationProfessional ConductLicensing SanctionsAdministrative OverreachStatutory InterpretationPublic Works ProjectsRegulatory ComplianceJudicial OversightAgency Rules ValidityProfessional Responsibility
References
16
Case No. 2014-06-0015
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2014

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Employee Luciano Gonzales, a tree-trimmer, appealed a decision by the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims which denied his claim for temporary disability and medical benefits after he broke his leg falling from a tree. The employer, ABC Professional Tree Services, asserted the defense of willful misconduct and willful failure to use a safety device, claiming Gonzales violated a "100% tie-in" safety policy by cutting a limb before fully tying in with a climbing rope. Gonzales argued he was rushed by his foreman and cut his lanyard accidentally. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial judge's decision, finding the employer successfully proved the four elements of the willful misconduct defense: actual notice of the rule, understanding of the danger, bona fide enforcement, and lack of a valid excuse for the violation.

Workers' CompensationWillful MisconductSafety Device ViolationTree Trimmer InjuryWorkplace SafetyProximate CauseInterlocutory AppealEmployer DefenseEmployee TrainingForeman Influence
References
7
Case No. 2014-06-0015
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 16, 2014

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

Luciano Gonzales, an employee of ABC Professional Tree Services, filed a Request for Expedited Hearing after breaking his leg on July 1, 2014. He sought temporary disability and medical benefits, claiming his foreman, Luis, rushed him, causing him to cut his lanyard and fall. The employer denied the claim, citing willful misconduct due to Gonzales's failure to adhere to a mandatory 100% tie-in safety policy, a rule he was trained on and understood. The Court found that Gonzales had actual knowledge of the rule and understood the danger of violating it, and the employer consistently enforced the rule. Ultimately, the Court determined that being rushed by a foreman who couldn't communicate a direct instruction to violate safety rules was not a valid excuse for non-compliance, denying the employee's request for benefits based on the willful misconduct defense.

Expedited HearingWillful Misconduct DefenseSafety Rule ViolationWorkplace AccidentEmployee Injury ClaimTree TrimmerFractured Leg InjuryEmployer Safety PolicyTemporary Disability DeniedMedical Benefits Denied
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,535 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