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. ADJ2948353 (SAL 0116403)
Regular
Jan 16, 2013

BRIAN CARRASCO vs. CLARK PEST CONTROL, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Brian Carrasco's petition for reconsideration as successive and untimely. Carrasco had previously filed a similar petition which was dismissed by the WCAB on October 4, 2012, and he failed to seek a writ of review from the Court of Appeal. The current petition, in addition to being a relitigation of dismissed issues, also violated court rules regarding formatting and length. The WCAB warned Carrasco that further attempts to relitigate these issues could result in him being declared a vexatious litigant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationSuccessive PetitionVexatious LitigantCourt of AppealWrit of ReviewLabor Code Section 5950Final OrderPetition to ReopenLabor Code Section 5804
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowen ex rel. Doe v. Arnold

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed whether a person convicted of rape and aggravated sexual battery is collaterally estopped from relitigating these issues in a subsequent civil lawsuit filed by the victim. The trial court had applied collateral estoppel, granting partial summary judgment to the victim. The Court affirmed this decision, abolishing the strict party mutuality requirement for both offensive and defensive collateral estoppel in Tennessee. The Court adopted sections 29 and 85 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments as guidelines. This was reasoned by the Court that the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior criminal trial, and no circumstances warranted relitigation in the civil action.

Collateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionOffensive Collateral EstoppelDefensive Collateral EstoppelParty Mutuality RequirementRestatement (Second) of JudgmentsCriminal Conviction in Civil CaseSummary JudgmentRapeAggravated Sexual Battery
References
88
Case No. 534670
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of John Molnar

Claimant John Molnar appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board which disallowed his claim for workers' compensation benefits, alleging an occupational disease of the bilateral wrists and hands. The Board affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding that the instant claim was an attempt to relitigate a previously disallowed claim from August 2020. This prior claim also involved a repetitive-use injury to his bilateral wrists, where the Board found a lack of evidence for a causal link to his employment. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precluded relitigation of the identical issue concerning the causal relationship between Molnar's employment and his alleged repetitive-use injury.

Occupational DiseaseBilateral Wrist InjuriesCarpal Tunnel SyndromeRepetitive Use InjuryCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataClaim DisallowanceWorkers' Compensation AppealCausal RelationshipPrior Litigation
References
6
Case No. M2015-00762-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2016

Ms. Bowen Ex Rel. John Doe, N v. William E. Arnold, Jr.

This appeal addresses whether a criminal conviction for rape and aggravated sexual battery can collaterally estop a defendant from relitigating these issues in a subsequent civil lawsuit filed by the victim. The trial court applied collateral estoppel, which was challenged by the defendant on grounds of lacking party mutuality and differing issues between criminal and civil proceedings. The Supreme Court of Tennessee abolished the strict party mutuality requirement for both offensive and defensive collateral estoppel, adopting sections 29 and 85 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments as guiding principles. Applying these new guidelines, the Court affirmed the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment against the defendant. This decision prevents the defendant from relitigating the issues of whether he raped and sexually battered the minor plaintiff in the ongoing civil action.

Collateral EstoppelNonmutual Collateral EstoppelOffensive Collateral EstoppelDefensive Collateral EstoppelCriminal ConvictionCivil LawsuitRapeAggravated Sexual BatteryRes JudicataJudicial Economy
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Voth v. Felderhoff

This is a declaratory judgment action concerning the ownership and partition of three tracts of rural real property. The core issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred by relitigating ownership interests in these properties, despite two prior preliminary decrees having already determined these interests. The appellate court found that the trial court's preliminary decrees were final and conclusive judgments, and thus the trial court had lost jurisdiction to alter their terms in a subsequent jury trial. The court held that the trial court committed fundamental error by proceeding with the relitigation and by refusing to vacate its November 17, 1986, judgment, which was deemed void. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a judgment that the appellees take nothing by their counterclaim, reaffirming the finality of the earlier preliminary decrees.

PartitionDeclaratory JudgmentReal Property OwnershipFinal JudgmentsInterlocutory DecreesRes JudicataJurisdictionFundamental ErrorAppellate ProcedureTexas Civil Procedure
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re in the Estate

Nelly Sosa, claiming informal marriage to the deceased employee Bruce Howard, was denied death benefits by the Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC). Subsequently, she filed wrongful death and survival claims against Howard's employer, CES Environmental Services, Inc., in probate court. CES successfully moved for summary judgment, arguing Sosa was precluded from relitigating her informal marriage status and that the survival claim was barred by the Workers' Compensation Act. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, holding that the DWC's determination of no informal marriage collaterally estopped Sosa from relitigating the issue in the wrongful death action. Furthermore, the court concluded that the exemplary damages exception under the Workers' Compensation Act applies only to wrongful death claims by a surviving spouse or heirs, not to survival claims, thus barring Sosa's survival action.

Collateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentWrongful Death ClaimSurvival ClaimWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive Remedy ProvisionInformal MarriageTexas Family CodeDeath Benefits
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide v. Transportation Insurance Company, CNA Insurance Company and Automatic Data Processing Inc.

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide has been involved in a protracted legal dispute since 1997, challenging the denial of his workers' compensation benefits. This opinion addresses his appeal of a 2014 trial court ruling, which declared him a vexatious litigant and imposed $3,000 in sanctions. Akinwamide contested the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction, its plenary power, and the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel, arguing his common-law claims remained pending. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction, its plenary power had expired, and Akinwamide's claims were indeed barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel due to repeated relitigation of issues previously decided in multiple prior appeals. The court also upheld the sanctions and vexatious litigant declaration, citing Akinwamide's continuous filing of frivolous pleadings and attempts to relitigate settled matters, which demonstrated an improper purpose including harassment.

Workers' Compensation DisputeVexatious LitigantSanctionsSubject-Matter JurisdictionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelPlenary PowerAppellate ReviewPro Se LitigationFrivolous Pleading
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diabo v. Delisle

Shaynah J. Diabo (mother) initiated a federal action under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) and the Hague Convention seeking the return of her minor child from the child's father and paternal grandparents. A previous April 2006 Order mandated the child's return to the mother in Canada and prohibited parties from seeking further custody orders. When the father subsequently filed a custody proceeding in Onondaga County Family Court, the mother sought a permanent injunction in federal court. The court granted the permanent injunction, finding that the state court action was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act's 'in aid of jurisdiction' and 'relitigation' exceptions. The federal court held that its retained jurisdiction and prior judgment on the child's best interest and habitual residence in Canada precluded relitigation of these issues in state court. The court also dismissed George M. Raus as a respondent and vacated an earlier Access Agreement, while directing the father to arrange visitation through a mediation center in Canada.

Child AbductionICARAHague ConventionPermanent InjunctionAnti-Injunction ActRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelFederal JurisdictionState Court InterferenceFamily Law
References
20
Case No. ADJ1990332 (OAK 0251897) ADJ332563 (OAK 0262649) ADJ2879880 (OAK 0263586) ADJ4303903 (OAK 0264811)
Regular
Nov 09, 2009

TERRY D. BROWN vs. PORT OF OAKLAND

The Appeals Board declared Terry Brown a vexatious litigant due to repeatedly filing unmeritorious papers attempting to relitigate previously determined issues. A prefiling order was implemented requiring review of his future filings.

Vexatious litigantRemovalAppeals BoardRule 10782Prefiling orderIn propria personaUnmeritorious petitionsConditional filingPresiding WCJGood cause
References
0
Case No. ADJ498505 (SFO 0420916), ADJ4168794 (SFO 0485699), ADJ6979901
Regular
May 15, 2012

DEBORAH ROLLINS vs. COUNTY OF SOLANO, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded a prior order, and canceled a trial date. This action prevents the relitigation of issues concerning the adequacy and applicant's competence to enter into a Compromise and Release agreement. The Board found that these issues were already decided with finality in a prior order that had res judicata effect. Therefore, the defendant would suffer prejudice by having to re-litigate settled matters.

RemovalCompromise and ReleaseAdequacyCompetenceReconsiderationFindings of Fact and LawLabor Code section 5803Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalSua Sponte
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 79 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