Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-11-00009-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 26, 2011

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The appellants, Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, filed a motion requesting the dismissal of their appeal. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted this motion and consequently dismissed the appeal. This decision was made in the case against Appellee Brian Fanette.

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation DivisionAppeal DismissalAppellant MotionJudicial DistrictTravis CountyMemorandum OpinionAdministrative AgencyState GovernmentAppellate Procedure

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

This case addresses whether ranch laborers are exempt from the Texas Workmen's Compensation Law as 'farm laborers.' The plaintiff in error, an employer, sought to apply common-law defenses against the defendant in error, a ranch laborer who sustained an injury. The lower courts ruled against the employer, denying common-law defenses on the basis that ranch laborers were not 'farm laborers' under the original act. However, the court, upon surveying dictionary definitions, concluded that 'farm laborers' broadly includes 'ranch laborers' for the purposes of the Workmen's Compensation Act as it stood before its 1921 amendment. The court also noted a subsequent legislative amendment that explicitly added 'ranch laborers' to the exemptions, supporting this interpretation of original legislative intent. Consequently, the judgments against the plaintiff in error were reversed, and judgment was rendered in his favor, allowing the common-law defenses of contributory negligence and assumed risk.

Workmen's Compensation ActFarm LaborersRanch LaborersStatutory InterpretationExemption ClauseContributory NegligenceAssumed RiskLegislative IntentDefinitions of Farm and RanchAgricultural Industry

References

Case No. 2015-06-0186, 78378-2014, 2015-06-0188, 24788-2015, 2015-06-0189, 24789-2015

Regular Panel Decision

May 13, 2016

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

This case involves employee Buster Barrett's request for medical and temporary disability benefits for injuries sustained on three separate dates: August 27, 2014, January 15, 2015, and January 21, 2015, while working for Lithko Contracting, Inc. The core legal issues were the entitlement to benefits and which insurance carrier, Ace American or Travelers, was responsible, as Lithko changed coverage during the period. The Court found Mr. Barrett entitled to medical treatment for the August 27, 2014 injury, attributing it as the primary causative event, and held Ace American liable. Dr. Scott Standard was appointed as the authorized treating physician. However, the Court denied Mr. Barrett's request for temporary disability benefits, concluding that Lithko had terminated him for cause unrelated to his injuries, rather than an inability to accommodate his work restrictions.

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityWork-Related InjuryEmployer ResponsibilityInsurance Carrier LiabilityAuthorized PhysicianTermination for CauseWorkplace SafetyInjury Causation

References

Case No. 2015-06-0186, 2015-06-0188, 2015-06-0189

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 31, 2017

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

Buster Barrett filed three Petitions for Benefit Determination alleging injury on August 27, 2014, January 15, 2015, and January 21, 2015, related to his back, left hip, and shoulder. Lithko Contracting, Inc. had two insurance carriers during this period: Ace American Insurance (until August 31, 2014) and The Travelers (from August 31, 2014, through at least January 21, 2015). Travelers filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it had no liability for the August 27, 2014, accident since Ace American was the carrier then. The Court granted Travelers' motion for summary judgment regarding the August 27, 2014, claim, dismissing Travelers from that case, as Ace American was stipulated to be the insurer. However, the Court denied Travelers' motion for summary judgment for the January 15 and 21, 2015, claims, pending further discovery after Mr. Barrett reaches maximum medical improvement.

Workers' compensationSummary judgmentCausationInsurance coverageTreating physicianMaximum medical improvementDispute certification noticeExpedited hearingStipulationAffidavit

References

Case No. 03-04-00628-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 17, 2008

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Joon S. Lee, M.D., appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission, which denied his admission to the Commission's approved doctor list (ADL). This denial prevented Dr. Lee from treating patients within the workers’ compensation system. Dr. Lee sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that the Commission's rule 180.20 exceeded its statutory authority and violated his due process rights by not providing an administrative hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the Commission's rule was valid and that Dr. Lee had no constitutionally protected property interest in being admitted to the ADL, thus no due process violation occurred.

Workers' Compensation SystemApproved Doctor List (ADL)Administrative LawStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessProperty InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRule-making AuthorityMedical Quality Review

References

Case No. 03-04-00627-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 17, 2008

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Appellant Stephen L. Wilson, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon, sought declaratory and injunctive relief after the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission denied his admission to its approved doctor list (ADL), preventing him from treating workers' compensation patients. Wilson argued that the Commission's rules for developing a new ADL and his exclusion from it were invalid and contrary to the labor code. He also claimed a denial of due process and due course of law due to the lack of an administrative hearing. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Commission. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, citing its ruling in a similar case, Joon S. Lee, M.D. v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission, et al.

Workers' CompensationApproved Doctor ListDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefSummary JudgmentDue ProcessDue Course of LawAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals

References

Case No. ADJ10717582

Regular

Mar 28, 2023

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

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration as it did not appeal a final order or decision. The WCAB also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no abuse of discretion by the judge regarding the admission of an Agreed Medical Evaluator's (AME) reports and the restriction of ex parte communications with a physician. The Board concluded that the defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, both petitions were dismissed and denied respectively.

Agreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Director RuleDue ProcessIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderTimeliness

References

Case No. 04-14-00123-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 28, 2014

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

The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, on February 28, 2014, issued an order in the case of Blanca Hernandez v. Eagle Pass Independent School District. The appellant, Blanca Hernandez, filed a motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal. The court, presided over by Judge Cynthia L. Muniz from the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas, granted the appellant's motion. This decision allows Blanca Hernandez more time to file her Notice of Appeal.

Extension of TimeNotice of AppealMotion GrantedAppellate ProcedureTexas CourtsCivil CaseJudicial OrderMaverick County CourtFourth Court of Appeals San AntonioWorkers' Compensation Division

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Augustus Bray, a long-time volunteer and officer for the AAU, filed a lawsuit against the AAU and three individual officers (Paul Campbell, Rod Seaford, Charles Oliver) following an incident at an AAU-sponsored track meet where he was accused of sexual misconduct and subsequently arrested. Bray alleged negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, aiding and abetting, and conspiracy. The defendants moved to compel arbitration based on a binding arbitration provision in the AAU National Policies, but the trial court denied their motion. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision, concluding that the arbitration agreement was valid and enforceable against Bray and that his claims fell within its scope. However, the court found the agreement's prohibition against punitive damages to be unconscionable and severed that provision. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case with instructions to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Contract LawAgency LawUnconscionabilityIllusory ContractPunitive DamagesSeverability ClauseVolunteer Sports OrganizationSexual Misconduct Allegation

References

Case No. 03-09-00680-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 28, 2013

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

MISSING

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawAppellate CourtGuaranty AssociationImpaired CarrierTexas LawThird District

References

Showing 1-10 of 34 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 03-11-00009-CV

Regular Panel Decision

May 26, 2011

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation DivisionAppeal DismissalAppellant MotionJudicial DistrictTravis CountyMemorandum OpinionAdministrative AgencyState GovernmentAppellate Procedure

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

Workmen's Compensation ActFarm LaborersRanch LaborersStatutory InterpretationExemption ClauseContributory NegligenceAssumed RiskLegislative IntentDefinitions of Farm and RanchAgricultural Industry

References

Case No. 2015-06-0186, 78378-2014, 2015-06-0188, 24788-2015, 2015-06-0189, 24789-2015

Regular Panel Decision

May 13, 2016

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

Workers' CompensationMedical BenefitsTemporary DisabilityWork-Related InjuryEmployer ResponsibilityInsurance Carrier LiabilityAuthorized PhysicianTermination for CauseWorkplace SafetyInjury Causation

References

Case No. 2015-06-0186, 2015-06-0188, 2015-06-0189

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 31, 2017

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

Workers' compensationSummary judgmentCausationInsurance coverageTreating physicianMaximum medical improvementDispute certification noticeExpedited hearingStipulationAffidavit

References

Case No. 03-04-00628-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 17, 2008

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Workers' Compensation SystemApproved Doctor List (ADL)Administrative LawStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessProperty InterestSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRule-making AuthorityMedical Quality Review

References

Case No. 03-04-00627-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 17, 2008

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Workers' CompensationApproved Doctor ListDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefSummary JudgmentDue ProcessDue Course of LawAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewTexas Court of Appeals

References

Case No. ADJ10717582

Regular

Mar 28, 2023

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

Agreed Medical EvaluatorPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalAdministrative Director RuleDue ProcessIrreparable HarmSubstantial PrejudiceFinal OrderInterlocutory OrderTimeliness

References

Case No. 04-14-00123-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Feb 28, 2014

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

Extension of TimeNotice of AppealMotion GrantedAppellate ProcedureTexas CourtsCivil CaseJudicial OrderMaverick County CourtFourth Court of Appeals San AntonioWorkers' Compensation Division

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActTexas Contract LawAgency LawUnconscionabilityIllusory ContractPunitive DamagesSeverability ClauseVolunteer Sports OrganizationSexual Misconduct Allegation

References

Case No. 03-09-00680-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 28, 2013

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

MISSING

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawAppellate CourtGuaranty AssociationImpaired CarrierTexas LawThird District

References

Showing 1-10 of 34 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.