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. 03-01-00187-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2002

Power Resource Group, Inc. v. Public Utility Commisison of Texas and Texas-New Mexico Power Company

This appeal concerns Power Resource Group, Inc.'s challenge to the Public Utility Commission of Texas's interpretation of rule 23.66, which governs the obligation of electric utilities to purchase energy and capacity from qualifying facilities (QFs). Power Resource argued that utilities must contract with QFs within 90 days of notification, irrespective of the QF's ability to deliver power within that period. The Commission asserted that a legally enforceable obligation only arises if the QF can provide energy within 90 days. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, upholding the Commission's interpretation as reasonable and not preempted by federal law, and denied Power Resource's contract and fraud claims against Texas-New Mexico Power Company.

Public Utility CommissionElectric UtilitiesQualifying Facilities (QF)PURPAEnergy Purchase ObligationAdministrative Rule InterpretationStatutory InterpretationContract LawFraud ClaimsSummary Judgment
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Powers v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Steve Powers, a former television reporter, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against Fox Television Stations, Inc. following his employment termination in 1992, citing violations of New York State and City human rights laws. Fox subsequently removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, referencing an arbitration clause within Powers' 1992 employment agreement, and to stay the ongoing action. Powers contended that his employment contract was exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that his claims fell outside the arbitration clause's scope. The court, relying on Second Circuit precedents, disagreed with Powers' interpretation, concluding that the FAA's employment contract exclusion was limited to the transportation industry and that the broadly worded arbitration clause encompassed the dispute. Consequently, the court granted Fox's motions, compelling arbitration and staying the civil action.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract LawStatutory InterpretationMotion to CompelStay of ProceedingsSecond Circuit PrecedentNew York Human Rights LawArbitration Clause Scope
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sosa v. Central Power & Light Co.

The Sosas sued Central Power & Light, Houston Power & Light, and General Electric for the wrongful death of Mr. Sosa, alleging liver disease from toxic chemical exposure in the early 1970s. Mr. Sosa died on June 1, 1991, and the Sosas filed suit on June 1, 1993. The defendants moved for summary judgment based on the statute of limitations, arguing the Sosas' First Amended Original Petition's allegations showed Mr. Sosa was incapacitated for twenty years, implying knowledge of injury. The Sosas attempted to file a Second Amended Original Petition without leave of court to invoke the discovery rule, but it was struck as untimely. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding the Second Amended Original Petition was untimely, leave to file was properly denied, the First Amended Original Petition's allegations constituted judicial admissions, and thus, the limitations defense barred the claim as Mr. Sosa was aware of his injuries more than four years prior to his death.

Wrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAmended PleadingDiscovery RuleJudicial AdmissionsToxic ExposureLiver DiseaseAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. ADJ3996107
Regular
Mar 27, 2010

DENISE ELLIS vs. DEPARTMENT OF WATER & POWER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Department of Water & Power's (DWP) Petition for Removal. The DWP failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Board also noted the petition was timely filed and DWP, as a municipal agency, is not required to verify it. Therefore, the petition was denied on its merits.

Petition for RemovalReparable HarmReconsiderationTimelinessVerificationMunicipal AgencySubpoena Duces TecumMold ExposureDiscovery OrderMandatory Settlement Conference
References
2
Case No. ADJ3867943 [SFO 0511706] ADJ 1789690 [SFO 0511707]
Regular
Sep 03, 2008

DOUGLAS MUNYER vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES (Adjusting Agent)

The WCAB granted the defendants' petition for removal, rescinding a prior order that denied a change of venue. The Board found the judge's subsequent order changing venue was void due to exceeding jurisdictional time limits. However, the Board then exercised its removal power to grant the venue change to Sacramento.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Denying Change of VenuePresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeLabor Code Section 5310WCAB Rule 10843WCAB Rule 10859Interlocutory orderFinal order
References
7
Case No. E2015-02226-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2016

Sandra Clark v. Christopher Powers

This interlocutory appeal addresses whether an automobile accident claim was barred by the statute of limitations due to non-compliance with service of process rules. Plaintiffs, Sandra and Sandy Clark, and defendant Christopher Powers's insurer, The General, had an agreement to defer service during settlement talks. Powers's underinsured motorist carrier, Allstate, later 'fronted' The General's policy limit to protect its subrogation rights. After the limitations period, Powers and Allstate moved for dismissal, but the trial court denied summary judgment based on equitable estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the denial, concluding that the agreement to forbear service was valid and ongoing, thus excusing the lack of formal service on Powers at the time the motion was filed.

Automobile AccidentStatute of LimitationsService of ProcessEquitable EstoppelSettlement NegotiationsUnderinsured Motorist CoverageSubrogation RightsSummary JudgmentInterlocutory AppealTennessee Rules of Civil Procedure
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. v. New York State Department of Labor

The appellate court addressed appeals by the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) concerning judgments that annulled the DOL's determination that prevailing wages must be paid by Feher Rubbish Removal, Inc. and Syracuse Haulers Waste Removal, Inc. for refuse collection, specifically questioning if this applied to private buildings. The court first clarified that the actions were purely for declaratory judgment, not CPLR article 78 proceedings to annul determinations. Interpreting Labor Law § 231 (1), the court found that its plain language and legislative intent did not limit its application to public buildings. Consequently, the court concluded that employers are indeed obligated to pay prevailing wages to employees collecting garbage or refuse from both public and private buildings under municipal contracts. The judgments of the lower court were modified, and declarations were amended to reflect this obligation.

Prevailing WageLabor LawStatutory InterpretationPublic WorksBuilding Service WorkGarbage CollectionRefuse RemovalMunicipal ContractsDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. SAC 308622 SAC 308623 SAC 309351 SAC 323463 SAC 355784
Regular
May 09, 2007

DELETTE ZIEGELMANN-JACKSON vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

The applicant sought removal to challenge the WCJ's deferral of a ruling on a petition to enforce a subpoena for personal items, arguing it unfairly required a second deposition. The Appeals Board dismissed removal in several cases where no issues were pending, but granted removal in case number SAC 355784. The Board affirmed the WCJ's order deferring the subpoena ruling, allowing for potential further depositions if warranted, and returned the matter for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalPetition to EnforceSubpoena Duces TecumDeferred RulingIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 132aDiscriminationPrivacyDeposition
References
0
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06425 [131 AD3d 461]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

Power v. Frasier

Joseph Power, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority, and his wife, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when Power was struck by a vehicle driven by coemployee John Frasier in a parking lot. Power had received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. The defendants, John Frasier and his father Edward M. Frasier, moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court granted their motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the Workers' Compensation Law provides an exclusive remedy when both parties are coemployees acting within the scope of their employment. Since John Frasier was found to be acting within the scope of his employment, he was immune from direct liability, and his father could not be held vicariously liable.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionsCoemployee ImmunitySummary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentParking Lot AccidentAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. ADJ1943415 (LBO 0381428)
Regular
Aug 14, 2012

ADALBERTO JUAREZ vs. P.S. STIX INCORPORATED, NATIONAL LIABILITY AND FIRE INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INSURANCE COMPANIES

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for removal regarding an order to disclose a global settlement with a co-defendant. The Appeals Board found the procedural record deficient, preventing timely review of the removal petition. Ultimately, the Board granted removal on its own motion to address the "procedural morass." The Board rescinded the WCJ's order reinstating a prior minute order and dismissed the lien claimant's petition as moot, allowing for an in-camera review of the settlement agreement.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantGlobal SettlementConfidentiality clauseNon-Disclosure clauseCompromise and ReleaseMandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJOrder Setting Aside
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 5,832 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