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. ADJ859899
Regular
Feb 25, 2011

FERNANDO SOSA vs. RIGOBERTO URIARTE DBA RIGO'S PLASTERING, UNISURED EMPLOYERS FUND

This case concerns a second petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, Rigoberto Uriarte DBA Rigo's Plastering, challenging both the original administrative law judge's decision and the Board's prior denial of reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the petition as legally impermissible, citing precedent that prohibits successive petitions after a decision has been rendered. The defendant's sole recourse after the Board's denial was to petition for a writ of review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalConsecutive PetitionSuccessive PetitionWrit of ReviewWCJ DecisionBoard DecisionCrowe Glass CompanyNavarro v. A&A Farming
References
4
Case No. ADJ859899 (LBO 0374978)
Regular
Oct 25, 2010

FERNANDO SOSA vs. RIGOBERTO URIARTE DBA RIGO'S PLASTERING; UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Rigoberto Uriarte's petition for reconsideration. The defendant's petition was found to be impermissibly skeletal, lacking specific references to the record and legal authority as required by California Code of Regulations. The Board cited regulations outlining the necessary components of a petition for reconsideration, including stating material evidence and clearly setting forth contentions. As the defendant failed to meet these procedural requirements, their petition was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRigoberto UriarteRigo's PlasteringUninsured Employers FundPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilitySkeletal PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
0
Case No. 2016-08-0876
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Morales, Rigoberto v. Boshwit Brothers, Inc.

An employee, Rigoberto Morales, working as a groundskeeper for Boshwit Brothers, Inc., sustained gunshot wounds during an assault by an unknown individual while mowing grass near a public road. The employer denied the claim, asserting the injury did not arise primarily out of employment, a conclusion initially affirmed by the trial court. On interlocutory appeal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the employee's duties exposed him to the general public and that operating noisy equipment near a public road increased his vulnerability, thus applying the street risk doctrine. The Board concluded that the employee is likely to prevail in establishing his injuries arose primarily out of his employment and remanded the case for a determination of benefits.

Workers' CompensationAssaultStreet Risk DoctrineEmployment InjuryGroundskeeperGunshot WoundsCompensabilityInterlocutory AppealCausal ConnectionIncreased Risk
References
10
Case No. No. 08-14-00229-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2015

Lucchese Boot Co., Bartolo Mata, and Rigoberto Gutierrez v. Jose Solano

Appellants Lucchese Boot Company, Bartolo Mata, and Rigoberto Gutierrez sought to reverse a trial court's denial of their motion to compel arbitration against former employee Jose Solano. Solano had filed a non-subscriber negligence suit after work-related injuries. Lucchese had previously attempted to compel arbitration under a different plan, which was denied. In this appeal, Lucchese sought to compel arbitration under its Problem Resolution Program. The Court of Appeals, Eighth District of Texas, found that a valid and unambiguous arbitration agreement existed within the Problem Resolution Program, which covered Solano's tort claims. The court also determined that Mata and Gutierrez, as employees, were third-party beneficiaries to this agreement, granting them the right to seek arbitration. The court rejected Solano's various defenses, including illusoriness, lack of meeting of the minds, ambiguity, procedural unconscionability, waiver, and estoppel. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with compelling arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DisputeNon-Subscriber NegligenceMotion to Compel ArbitrationProblem Resolution ProgramContract EnforceabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryProcedural UnconscionabilityWaiverEstoppel
References
32
Case No. 14-17-00433-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Robert Stevenson v. Waste Management of Texas, Inc. and Rigoberto Zelaya

In this personal-injury case, a worker, Robert Stevenson, hired by a temporary-employment supplier suffered serious injuries while performing tasks for Waste Management of Texas, Inc. The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Stevenson’s negligence claim, citing the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusive-remedy provision, asserting Stevenson was an employee of Waste Management. Stevenson appealed, arguing a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding his employment status. The appellate court found that the summary-judgment evidence raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Stevenson was Waste Management’s “employee” under the statute. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Employment LawSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorNegligencePersonal InjuryTemporary EmploymentRight to ControlAppellate ReviewTexas LawMaster Agreement
References
17
Case No. 19-0282
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2021

Waste Management of Texas, Inc. and Rigoberto Zelaya v. Robert Stevenson

Justice Boyd issues a concurring opinion, agreeing with the Court's judgment that Robert Stevenson was an employee of Waste Management of Texas, Inc. under the Workers' Compensation Act, but disagrees with the Court's reasoning. He argues that the Court errs by creating a new test for employee status in workers' compensation cases, diverging from the well-established 'right-to-control' test applicable to both workers' compensation and vicarious liability. Boyd emphasizes that an express contract denying the right to control can be overcome by conclusive evidence of actual control if it demonstrates the contract was a sham or implicitly modified. He concludes that the summary-judgment record in this case compellingly shows Waste Management's persistent and comprehensive control over Stevenson's work, thus establishing an employer-employee relationship.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusIndependent ContractorRight to ControlDual EmploymentContractual InterpretationTexas Supreme CourtConcurring OpinionVicarious LiabilityStaffing Agency
References
23
Case No. ADJ7503292
Regular
Mar 26, 2013

RIGOBERTO MENDOZA vs. PIZZA MIZZA, GUARD INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Rigoberto Mendoza's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) finding that Mendoza did not sustain the alleged industrial injury. The WCJ's decision was based on an evaluation of witness credibility and inconsistencies in Mendoza's account of the injury. Specifically, the WCJ found the employer's testimony more credible regarding the timing and nature of the reported injury. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination, leading to the denial of reconsideration.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationDenialCredibilityGarza v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.ApplicantEmployerIndustrial InjuryBack InjuryLeg Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lucchese Boot Co. v. Solano

Jose Solano, a former employee of Lucchese Boot Company, filed a non-subscriber negligence suit after suffering work-related injuries. Lucchese sought to compel arbitration, first under its Benefit Plan, which was denied, and then under its Problem Resolution Program. The trial court denied the motion to compel arbitration under the Program, leading to this appeal. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, finding that a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement existed under the Problem Resolution Program. It determined that Solano's claims fell within the scope of the agreement and that co-defendants Bartolo Mata and Rigoberto Gutierrez were proper parties as third-party beneficiaries. The court also rejected Solano's defenses of procedural unconscionability, waiver, and estoppel, remanding the case for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment LawContract EnforcementProcedural UnconscionabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryWaiver DefenseEstoppel DefenseGateway IssuesTexas Civil PracticeProblem Resolution Program
References
39
Case No. ADJ7897975, ADJ7897976
Regular
Jun 25, 2013

RIGOBERTO CATALAN vs. WILLIAM LENIHAM

This case involves an applicant seeking reconsideration of an order dismissing his workers' compensation cases with prejudice. The applicant's attorney asserts the dismissal was procured through employer coercion, promising a settlement in exchange for dismissing the cases and counsel. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that further proceedings are necessary to determine the propriety of the dismissal. The prior dismissal order was rescinded, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing ApplicationRescindedReturn to Trial LevelIllegally UninsuredBackdoor SettlementStatus ConferencePetition for ReconsiderationOrder Suspending ActionAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. ADJ9163494, ADJ9163491
Regular
Dec 28, 2015

RIGOBERTO NORIEGA vs. BEST WESTERN TOWN AND COUNTRY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the original decision due to an inadequate medical report from the panel qualified medical evaluator (PQME). The PQME's opinion was based on incomplete medical records, including a failure to review records related to the applicant's cancer treatment, and did not adequately address the applicant's claimed injuries or permanent disability according to AMA Guides. The case is returned to the trial level for further development of the medical record, including the potential appointment of a regular physician and consideration of a videotape of the injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorSubstantial Medical EvidenceCumulative Trauma InjuryIndustrial InjuryPermanent DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentMedical Record DevelopmentAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 23 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