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

State v. Krizan-Wilson

Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson was indicted for murder nearly 23 years after her husband's death. She moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing prosecutorial delay violated her rights to due process, speedy trial, due course of law, fair trial, testify, present a defense, and effective representation, and that the indictment was barred by laches. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing the indictment. The State of Texas appealed this decision. The appellate court analyzed the due process claim under a two-prong test requiring both substantial prejudice and intentional delay for tactical advantage or bad faith. While acknowledging Krizan-Wilson suffered substantial prejudice due to the delay, including loss of witnesses, evidence, and her mental deterioration, the court found no evidence that the delay was intentional or for improper purposes. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order of dismissal, finding no merit in any of the grounds cited for dismissal and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Due ProcessProsecutorial DelayPre-indictment DelayRight to Fair TrialEffective Assistance of CounselLaches DoctrineConstitutional LawCriminal ProcedureMurder IndictmentDismissal of Charges
References
23
Case No. 14-09-00475-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2010

State v. Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson

Carolyn Sue Krizan-Wilson was indicted for the 1985 murder of her husband. She sought dismissal due to a nearly 23-year prosecutorial delay, arguing due process violations, which the trial court granted. The State of Texas appealed, contending that the trial court erred in finding intentional delay for tactical advantage or bad faith. The appellate court, applying the Fifth Circuit and Texas two-prong test, acknowledged substantial prejudice but found no evidence of intentional delay for an improper purpose. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, rejecting other grounds for dismissal such as effective assistance of counsel, right to testify, fair trial, and laches.

Pre-indictment DelayDue ProcessFifth AmendmentSixth AmendmentTexas ConstitutionRight to Fair TrialEffective Assistance of CounselLaches DoctrineMurder IndictmentAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Leake

Appellee H. B. Leake sued appellant Texas Employers’ Insurance Association to overturn an Industrial Accident Board award and seek compensation for a 1935 back injury. Leake filed his claim nine years later, alleging "good cause" due to initial belief of trivial injury and doctors misdiagnosing his condition as rheumatism, a claim supported by a jury verdict. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Leake’s testimony, even when viewed favorably, failed to establish "good cause" for the extensive delay. The court highlighted that Leake knew of his injury from the start, suffered continuous pain, and notably withheld injury details from his consulted physicians. Furthermore, a two-year period following a varicose vein operation lacked any documented "good cause" for continued delay in filing, solidifying the court's decision to render judgment for the appellant.

Delayed Claim FilingGood Cause ExceptionStatute of LimitationsWorkman's CompensationBack InjuryMedical MisdiagnosisPermanent Total IncapacityAppellate ReviewReversed and RenderedIndustrial Accident Board
References
14
Case No. E2015-00811-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2017

State of Tennessee v. Billy Hill

Billy Hill was convicted of second-degree murder for the 1986 killing of his mother and sentenced to twenty-four years' confinement. He appealed, alleging errors including the denial of motions to dismiss due to lost evidence and pre-indictment delay, improper witness testimony from his former wives and a jail inmate, and prosecutorial misconduct. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed his conviction, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings on these matters. Specifically, the court addressed the State's duty to preserve evidence, the impact of pre-indictment delay on due process, the admissibility of character evidence and confessions, and the parameters of closing arguments. The conviction was affirmed, but the case was remanded solely for the entry of a corrected judgment reflecting the proper felony classification for second-degree murder as a Class X felony at the time of the offense.

Criminal LawHomicideSecond Degree MurderAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessEvidentiary IssuesProsecutorial MisconductWitness CredibilityConfession AdmissibilityStatute of Limitations
References
59
Case No. ADJ6973825
Regular
May 21, 2012

MONICA BENARD vs. JENNY CRAIG, SEDGWICK CMS

This case concerns a penalty imposed on Jenny Craig for unreasonably delaying authorization for applicant Monica Benard's chiropractic treatment. The WCJ found a 25% penalty for the delay, which Jenny Craig appealed, arguing the delay was due to the applicant's choice of a chiropractor outside their Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Appeals Board affirmed the unreasonable delay finding but reduced the penalty to 20% of the delayed treatment's value, citing a failure in case management rather than intentional disregard. Jurisdiction was reserved for the parties to adjust the penalty amount.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardMonica BenardJenny CraigSedgwick CMSADJ6973825ReconsiderationFindings and AwardLabor Code section 5814Medical Provider Network (MPN)chiropractic treatment
References
9
Case No. ADJ9932467
Regular
Oct 16, 2017

THERESA MCFARLAND vs. REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's decision that "Return-To-Work" supplemental payments under Labor Code section 139.48 are not "compensation" as defined by Labor Code section 3207. Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to a second penalty under Labor Code section 5814 for the employer's delay in providing a Supplemental Job Displacement Benefit voucher, as that delay did not cause a delay in a compensable benefit. The Board found that the applicant's penalty claim for the voucher delay was already resolved and that imposing a second penalty for a non-compensable benefit delay would be unfair and against the principle of balancing justice.

Labor Code section 139.48Return-To-Work supplemental paymentscompensation definitionLabor Code section 3207Labor Code section 5814 penaltyLabor Code section 4658.7 voucherSupplemental Job Displacement Benefitcompromise and release agreementGage v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.unreasonable delay
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blau Mechanical Corp. v. City of New York

This appeal addresses whether contractual delays, for which the plaintiff-respondent sought monetary damages for plumbing work at the New York Zoological Park, were contemplated by the parties' agreement. The court concluded that these delays were indeed contemplated, reversing a prior Supreme Court finding. The contract included a clause barring damages for delay unless caused by intentional wrongdoing, gross negligence, or willful misconduct. The plaintiff alleged delays due to structural changes, unexpected subsurface conditions, and interference from a local community group. However, the court found that the contract explicitly anticipated changes and differing subsurface conditions. Additionally, delays from community group intrusion were not attributable to the City as grossly negligent or intentional, thereby precluding recovery for damages.

Contractual DelaysDamages for DelayContemplated DelaysConstruction ContractPlumbing WorkNew York CityAppellate ReviewSubsurface ConditionsChange OrdersCommunity Interference
References
4
Case No. SBA 0076630
Regular
Mar 03, 2008

Janice Brackenridge-DeGraff vs. ACTMEDIA, INC., INTERCARE INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, overturning a prior decision that denied penalties for delayed payment. The Board found the employer unreasonably delayed payment of the compromise and release agreement by 10 days beyond the agreed-upon 30-day deadline. Consequently, the Board awarded a 5% penalty on the delayed amount and a separate 5% penalty for the unreasonable delay in paying the legally owed interest.

Labor Code section 5814ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleasePenaltyUnreasonable DelayPaymentInterestAttorney's FeesCIGAWCJ
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Tomaino

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of second-degree murder in connection with his wife's death. The conviction was subsequently reversed on appeal, and the indictment dismissed, due to cumulative errors during the Grand Jury proceedings and an improper denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss based on preindictment delay. The appellate court found that while initial resubmission to a Grand Jury was justified by improper instructions given to the first Grand Jury, the Special Grand Jury suffered from prosecutorial misconduct including the introduction of prejudicial and irrelevant testimony. Furthermore, audio tests conducted during the execution of a search warrant were deemed unauthorized. The case was remanded with leave for the People to apply for an order permitting resubmission of the charge to another Grand Jury.

MurderSecond DegreeGrand JuryIndictment DismissalProsecutorial MisconductDue ProcessSpeedy TrialPreindictment DelaySearch WarrantAudio Tests
References
23
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 638 ... Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

This opinion addresses backpay claims in an employment discrimination case spanning over two decades. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) represents black and Hispanic workers against Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and its Joint Apprenticeship Committee, alleging discriminatory admission practices. The court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the backpay claims, rejecting arguments regarding settlement, prosecutorial delay, inadequate discovery, and notice-of-claim deadlines. It also found defendants failed to prove claimants were unqualified or failed to mitigate damages by joining the armed forces or attending school. Furthermore, the court clarified prejudgment interest rates to be applied and affirmed the administrator's decision regarding claimant Charles Moss, directing further proceedings on defendants' financial capacity and revised backpay calculations.

Employment DiscriminationBackpay ClaimsTitle VIICivil Rights ActLabor Union DiscriminationApprenticeship ProgramsRacial DiscriminationHispanic DiscriminationMitigation of DamagesPrejudgment Interest
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 1,808 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