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. 03-10-00358-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2012

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

This case concerns a dispute within the Texas Legislative Service (TLS) partnership, where Russell H. Fish, III, sued his brothers Andrew K. Fish and John C. Fish for alleged breaches of their partnership agreement, fiduciary duties, and intellectual property misappropriation. Russell claimed Andrew and John improperly set their compensation, denied him access to partnership records, and violated terms regarding the sale of their mother's partnership interest. Furthermore, Russell alleged that Andrew competed with TLS by operating similar businesses in other states and misused TLS's trade secrets and software. The trial court initially granted summary judgment in favor of Andrew and John on all claims. On appeal, the court affirmed most of the trial court's rulings but reversed and remanded the breach of contract claim related to partner compensation, citing a partial limitations bar and a remaining factual dispute regarding waiver.

Partnership AgreementBreach of ContractFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsWaiverTrade SecretsCopyright InfringementPartner CompensationAccess to Records
References
27
Case No. 03-06-00501-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2007

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

This case originated from a suit filed by Edd Hendee and Citizens Lowering Our Unfair Taxes (C.L.O.U.T.) against the Lieutenant Governor, Speaker of the House, Comptroller, members of the Legislative Budget Board, and the State of Texas. Plaintiffs challenged H.B. 1, enacted in response to the Neeley v. West Orange Cove case, which aimed to shift public school funding. They alleged that H.B. 1's appropriation violated Article VIII, Section 22 of the Texas Constitution and Chapter 316 of the Government Code by exceeding the biennial cap on the rate of growth of appropriations. Plaintiffs also argued that Chapter 316 constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. The district court granted the State Defendants' plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed the claims. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the unconstitutional delegation claim but reversed and remanded the claims regarding the unconstitutionality and illegality of H.B. 1's appropriation for further proceedings, noting that Plaintiffs are entitled to amend their pleadings to address associational standing defects.

Constitutional LawState AppropriationsSpending CapLegislative Budget BoardTaxpayer StandingSeparation of PowersJudicial ReviewPublic School FinanceTexas ConstitutionGovernment Code
References
45
Case No. 2015-2418 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

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

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, Park Insurance Co., sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint filed by Remedial Medical Care, P.C., as assignee of Thomas Brown. The Civil Court initially denied the motion but found that the defendant had established timely mailing of denials. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendant for a bill of services rendered on August 23, 2012, as it was paid according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. However, for the remaining bills, the defendant failed to prove timely mailing of IME scheduling letters, thus failing to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled or that the assignor failed to appear. Therefore, the denial of summary judgment for the remaining claims was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Timely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermCivil CourtDenial of ClaimFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

The dissent argues that the majority overstepped its bounds by judicially creating a right for Limited Liability Company (LLC) members to bring derivative actions, a right that the New York Legislature explicitly considered and rejected during the enactment of the LLC Law in 1994. Justice Read highlights the legislative history, demonstrating that while the Assembly initially included derivative action provisions in proposed LLC bills, the Senate consistently omitted them, leading to a deliberate legislative compromise that excluded such rights from the final statute. The dissent criticizes the majority's justification based on existing common law and analogies to other business entities, asserting that there is no settled law regarding derivative suits for LLCs, which are a relatively new statutory form. Citing precedents, Justice Read emphasizes the Court's consistent deference to legislative intent, particularly when proposed statutory language is omitted. The dissenting opinion concludes that the majority has effectively rewritten the law, undermining legislative prerogative and providing a remedy unfettered by the safeguards typically imposed by the Legislature.

Limited Liability Companies (LLCs)Derivative SuitsLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationJudicial ActivismAppellate ProcedureBusiness LawCorporate GovernancePartnership LawCommon Law Equity
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2000

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Justice Owen, joined by Justice Hecht, dissents from the Court's holding that Bennett is not required to exhaust administrative remedies under the Texas Pawnshop Act before filing suit. Owen argues that the Act, prior to its September 1999 amendment, clearly mandated exhaustion and that the legislative intent of a later amendment should not infer the intent of an earlier one. The dissent also addresses Bennett's constitutional challenges, finding that limiting recovery to like-kind replacement does not violate the open courts provision given the nature of pawnshop transactions and the reasonable substitution of remedies. However, Justice Owen agrees that the Act, as interpreted by the Texas Administrative Procedure Act (imposing substantial evidence review), would violate the right to a jury trial under the Texas Constitution. Owen proposes severing the unconstitutional aspect of substantial evidence review, allowing for de novo review with a jury determination of factual issues. The dissent concludes that Bennett failed to exhaust administrative remedies and therefore her claim should be dismissed or abated.

Exhaustion of Administrative RemediesTexas Pawnshop ActStatutory InterpretationRight to Jury TrialOpen Courts ProvisionConstitutional LawSubstantial Evidence ReviewDe Novo ReviewSeverabilityAdministrative Procedure Act
References
17
Case No. 889 F. Supp. 98
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1995

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Legislative employees of New York State sought a preliminary injunction to compel payment of their bi-weekly salaries, which were withheld by Governor Pataki after March 31, 1995, amidst a state budget dispute. They alleged violations of the Contract Clause, Equal Protection, Due Process, and separation of powers. The court dismissed the State of New York as a defendant due to Eleventh Amendment immunity but proceeded against Governor Pataki. Finding irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the Contract Clause claim, the court issued a mandatory preliminary injunction. This order requires the Governor, when seeking future appropriations for state workers, not to exclude legislative employees and to allocate funds for their payment.

Preliminary InjunctionContract ClauseEleventh AmendmentState EmployeesWage DisputeSeparation of PowersDue ProcessEqual ProtectionNew York StateGovernor's Powers
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff Alexander Guerrero Toro, a pro se asbestos handler, sued NorthStar Demolition & Remediation LP under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL), alleging failure to accommodate his carpal tunnel syndrome, wrongful termination, workplace harassment, and retaliation. After experiencing pain in his right arm, Plaintiff was placed on restricted duty, limiting his ability to perform essential job functions. Defendant provided various temporary light-duty assignments, but eventually, no suitable tasks remained due to seasonal changes and Plaintiff's ongoing limitations. Plaintiff also claimed harassment from co-workers and supervisors, and retaliation for filing administrative complaints. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, or that a hostile work environment or retaliation existed based on admissible evidence. The NYSHRL claims were also dismissed, with some being jurisdictionally barred due to the election of remedies.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeReasonable AccommodationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentPro Se LitigationEmployment LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
122
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

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

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Hector Garza, a DuPont operator, was injured in a railcar accident involving Zachry Construction Corp. employees, Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez. Garza received workers' compensation benefits from DuPont and subsequently sued Zachry, Morales, and Rodriguez for negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Garza's claims were barred by the workers' compensation exclusive remedy under Texas Labor Code section 408.001, which applies to subcontractors via section 406.128. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment. On appeal, Garza argued that Zachry's employees were not DuPont's "deemed employees" for exclusive remedy purposes and that applying the bar violated the Texas Constitution's open courts provision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the contract between DuPont and Zachry did not negate the "deemed employer" status for workers' compensation purposes and that the workers' compensation benefits constituted an adequate quid pro quo for the relinquishment of common-law claims, thus not violating the open courts guarantee.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityExclusive Remedy BarSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Open Courts ProvisionLabor Code InterpretationSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimsDeemed Employer StatusFellow Employee DoctrineContractual Agreement
References
19
Case No. ADJ4415679 (OAK 0259031) ADJ2701101 (WCK0050594)
Regular
May 10, 2010

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

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a judge's decision, ruling that Napa Pipe, a self-insured special employer, is liable for applicant Stanley Sanders' workers' compensation benefits. Despite an agreement between the general employer (Remedy Temp) and Napa Pipe attempting to limit liability to Remedy Temp's insurer (Reliance), Napa Pipe's joint and several liability as a special employer cannot be contractually eliminated. Because Napa Pipe's self-insurance was not excluded for special employees and constitutes "other insurance" under Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), CIGA is relieved of its obligation to provide benefits following Reliance's insolvency. Therefore, Napa Pipe must now provide all workers' compensation benefits and administer the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStanley SandersRemedy Intelligent StaffingCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationReliance National Insurance CompanyOregon Steel MillsNapa PipeADJ4415679ADJ2701101Opinion and Decision After Reconsideration
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 3,424 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