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. 08-15-00315-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2018

John David Najera v. State

John David Najera appealed his conviction for theft of service, arguing the State failed to prove statutory notice of demand for payment was sent with a return receipt requested as mandated by Texas Penal Code Section 31.04(c). The Labor Justice Committee, acting on behalf of the complainant Esteban Rangel, sent a demand letter to Najera. Although the letter indicated a return receipt was requested, evidence including the postal service receipt and testimony confirmed it was sent via certified mail without a return receipt. The court found this a critical deficiency, as the statute explicitly requires a return receipt. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a judgment of acquittal due to legally insufficient evidence.

Theft of ServiceLegal SufficiencyStatutory NoticeReturn Receipt RequestedCertified MailTexas Penal CodeDemand for PaymentCriminal ConvictionAcquittalDue Process
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bitterman v. Friscos Restaurant, Inc.

The State Insurance Fund appealed decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the cancellation of an insurance policy. The Board initially found the Fund's cancellation failed to comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54(5) due to a lack of a return receipt request. An amended decision modified this, citing insufficient proof of a return receipt request. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, emphasizing the strict requirement for statutory compliance in policy cancellation and the insufficiency of a mailing manifest without proof of a return receipt request. The court noted the absence of testimony establishing the Fund's office practice for proper mailing.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy CancellationCertified MailReturn ReceiptStatutory ComplianceMailing ManifestProof of MailingAppellate ReviewState Insurance FundUninsured Employers' Fund
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Muszynski v. Dennis Puricelli Masonry & Concrete, Inc.

The Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, filed March 3, 1982, regarding a carrier's cancellation of a workers' compensation insurance policy was appealed. The appellate court found that the Board applied an incorrect standard by requiring the production of a return receipt to prove notice of cancellation, as the statute only requires the notice to be sent with a return receipt *requested*. Consequently, the decision imposing liability on the carrier and discharging the Uninsured Employers Fund was reversed. The matter is remitted to the Board for further proceedings to consider other grounds, specifically the employer's proof of mailing, which the Board did not initially address.

Workers' Compensation LawInsurance Policy CancellationNotice of CancellationCertified MailReturn Receipt RequestedStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewRemandUninsured Employers FundBurden of Proof
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 1989

People ex rel. Anne N. v. Nassau County Department of Social Services

This appeal addresses whether the Nassau County Department of Social Services lawfully denied a mother's request for her daughter's return, despite a voluntary placement agreement. The mother had signed an agreement stating the child would be returned 'when [the] Commissioner [of Social Services] sees fit' and later requested the child's immediate return, citing Social Services Law § 384-a (2) (a). The Family Court dismissed her writ of habeas corpus, interpreting the 'sees fit' clause as an identifiable event, thereby allowing the Department to retain custody. The appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the phrase rendered the agreement one for indefinite placement, requiring the Department to return the child within 20 days of the mother's request, absent a contrary court order, which was not obtained. Consequently, the court sustained the writ and ordered the immediate surrender of custody to the petitioner.

Child custodyVoluntary placement agreementSocial Services Law § 384-aHabeas corpusParental rightsIndefinite placementFamily CourtNassau CountyDepartment of Social ServicesChild welfare
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2015

Tom J. Jones, and All Occupants v. Dinh Tran & Sonny & Anna, LLC

This document is an Affidavit of Indigency, also known as a Pauper's Oath or Affidavit of Inability to Pay Court Costs. It is used by a petitioner to request the court to waive court fees, asserting an inability to pay due to indigency or receipt of public benefits. The affidavit requires the petitioner to provide current, complete, and true financial information, including income sources and amounts, public benefits received, dependents, property, debts, and monthly expenses. The document warns that false statements can lead to prosecution and states that the court may conduct a hearing to verify the financial information before approving or denying the request for fee waiver. The case involves I. J. Doubs as the petitioner and Jerry D. Crawford as the respondent, filed in the 14th Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas, on January 28, 2015.

Affidavit of IndigencyCourt Costs WaiverPauper's OathFinancial DisclosurePublic BenefitsFee ExemptionTexas Civil ProcedureIndigent LitigantJudicial AdministrationCivil Litigation
References
0
Case No. 2014-06-0085
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2015

Ballard, Stephanie v. Christian Broadcast Network, Inc.

Stephanie Ballard, an employee of Christian Broadcast Network, Inc. (CBN), filed an amended Request for Expedited Hearing seeking medical and temporary disability benefits after sustaining a wrist injury on August 6, 2014. The Court addressed whether CBN was obligated to provide additional medical care for her wrist and temporary disability benefits, and if her current wrist complaints were related to the work injury. The Court found conflicting medical opinions from Dr. N.K. Singh regarding Ballard's return-to-work date and the causation of her wrist pain. Due to the lack of clear expert medical proof and Ms. Ballard's failure to present countervailing evidence, the Court denied her request for temporary disability and medical benefits at this time. The matter was set for an Initial Hearing on September 14, 2015.

Workers' CompensationExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCausal RelationshipMedical Expert OpinionConflicting Medical ReportsWrist InjuryCervicalgiaCervical Strain
References
3
Case No. 2015-03-0412
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2016

Morgan, Angela v. DRS Product Returns

Angela Morgan, a damaged merchandise scanner, sustained a right elbow injury on September 22, 2014, leading to neck and shoulder pain and subsequent termination for unexcused absences. After an MRI, Dr. Patrick Bolt diagnosed a herniated disc and performed surgery on December 10, 2015. Ms. Morgan sought temporary total disability benefits from December 10, 2015, through March 28, 2016. The employer, DRS Product Returns, argued that Dr. Bolt's deposition indicated an earlier return to light duty. However, the Court found Ms. Morgan demonstrated a likelihood to prevail, citing Dr. Bolt's office notes confirming she was kept off work until March 28, 2016, due to slow bone graft healing. The Court granted her request for temporary total disability benefits for the specified period.

Temporary Total DisabilityWorkers' CompensationExpedited HearingWorkplace InjuryHerniated DiscCervical Fusion SurgeryReturn to Work RestrictionsMedical ReportsCausationBurden of Proof
References
4
Case No. 2024-60-0763
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2024

Adams, Pamela v. LHC Group, a/k/a SunCrest Companion Services

Pamela Adams, a licensed practical nurse, suffered a shoulder and head injury on March 3, 2023, while assisting a patient, with the employer, SunCrest Companion Services, accepting the claim. Ms. Adams subsequently sought referrals to ear, nose, and throat specialists and ophthalmologists due to visual changes and tinnitus, in addition to temporary disability benefits and attorney's fees. The Court denied her requests, finding that Dr. Subir Prasad, the authorized treating physician, did not believe the need for specialist treatment was more than 50% related to the work incident. Furthermore, the Court determined that Ms. Adams failed to act reasonably in attempting to return to light-duty work offered by SunCrest. Consequently, the Court ruled that Ms. Adams was unlikely to prevail at trial on her requests for medical benefits and temporary partial disability.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityCausation DisputeSpecialist ReferralExpedited HearingLight Duty OfferReturn to WorkTinnitusBlurred Vision
References
2
Case No. ADJ234009 (OAK 0324352) ADJ3704382 (OAK 0335469)
Regular
Jan 12, 2010

Carole Young vs. IPC SECURITY, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ABM adjusted by ESIS

The applicant sought removal and disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) alleging bias due to denied trial requests, refusal to consider evidence, and case delays. The Appeals Board denied the removal and disqualification, stating a subjective perception of bias is insufficient grounds. The Board returned the case to the Presiding WCJ to address the defendant's request to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant, requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardremovaldisqualificationworkers' compensation judge (WCJ)biasvexatious litigantPWCJWCAB Rule 10782applicantdefendant
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1987

Claim of Betances v. Hexreed Industries, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on February 2, 1987, which found the State Insurance Fund (SIF) not liable for compensation benefits to a claimant. The employer, Hexreed Industries, Inc., and the Uninsured Employers’ Fund (appellants) challenged SIF’s cancellation of Hexreed’s workers’ compensation policy, effective January 5, 1980, for nonpayment of premium. The core issue was whether SIF complied with Workers’ Compensation Law § 54 (5) regarding the mailing of cancellation notices via certified or registered mail with a return receipt. Appellants argued that SIF failed to produce a return receipt and that a discrepancy existed in its mailing manifest. However, the Board credited testimony from SIF's senior underwriter regarding standard office procedures for cancellations. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the failure to produce a return receipt does not preclude a finding of proper cancellation and that the statutory requirement of a specified date refers to the cancellation date itself, not the filing date.

Workers' Compensation InsurancePolicy CancellationNotice of CancellationCertified MailReturn ReceiptStatutory ComplianceMailing ProceduresWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 9,522 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