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. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
Case No. MON 0342844
Regular
Aug 20, 2007

DANNY HOPKINS vs. MCMAHAN'S FURNITURE STORES, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision that denied a psychiatric injury claim. The Board found the original judge did not properly apply the *Rolda v. Pitney Bowes* analysis to determine if a lawful personnel action was the substantial cause of the injury. The case is returned to the trial level for further analysis under *Rolda* and to allow for further development of the medical record, specifically regarding whether personnel actions were a substantial cause of the alleged injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric injuryLawful personnel actionRolda v. Pitney BowesInc.Labor Code section 3208.3Good faithNon-discriminatoryDemotionPredominant cause
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. ADJ8645032
Regular
Jan 30, 2019

BONNIE KEEFE vs. CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior award concerning Bonnie Keefe's claimed cervical, lumbar, and psychiatric injuries. The WCAB found that while the WCJ properly adjudicated the physical injuries and the expedited hearing was appropriate, the analysis for the psychiatric injury was incomplete. Specifically, the WCAB determined that the WCJ failed to conduct a full *Rolda* analysis, which is required to assess claims of psychiatric injury stemming from good faith personnel actions. Therefore, the issue of psychiatric injury is deferred for further proceedings at the trial level.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and Awardscervical spinelumbar spinepsychiatric systemtemporary total disabilityRolda v. Pitney Bowesexpedited hearinggood faith personnel actionsadministrative law judge
References
4
Case No. ADJ7425483
Regular
Aug 28, 2019

TERRI CEBALLOS vs. HEMET UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to further study the case of Terri Cebellos versus Hemet Unified School District. The WCAB found the original decision by the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) insufficient regarding psychiatric injury causation. Specifically, the WCAB determined that the WCJ's analysis and the medical evidence presented did not fully address the legal requirements for establishing industrial causation, particularly concerning good faith personnel actions and the Rolda analysis. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's decision and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings and a new decision to properly develop the record.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPsychiatric injuryHostile work environmentPersonnel actionsGood faithPredominant causeRolda analysisCausationMedical evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ10544667
Regular
Nov 15, 2019

NEREYDA VARGAS vs. WELLS FARGO BANK NORTH AMERICA, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision finding no industrial psychiatric injury. The Board found the original decision failed to conduct the multi-level analysis required by *Rolda v. Pitney Bowes, Inc.* concerning actual employment events and lawful, good faith personnel actions. The case is returned to the trial level for further development and analysis to determine if actual employment events predominated the injury and if any lawful personnel actions were a substantial cause. The Workers' Compensation Judge must specifically address all alleged events, medical evidence, and potential inconsistencies in the Qualified Medical Evaluator's reports.

psychiatric injurycumulative traumaRolda analysispredominant causelawful personnel actionnondiscriminatorygood faithactual events of employmentpredicate eventsmedical evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ8981788
Regular
Apr 29, 2015

YVETTE VASQUEZ vs. SENECA CENTER, SEQUOIA NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the original decision. The Board found that while some work events were good faith personnel actions, there was no substantial medical evidence, as required by the *Rolda* analysis, proving these actions accounted for 35-40% of the applicant's psychiatric injury. Therefore, the claim is not barred by Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board adopted the workers' compensation judge's report and reasoning in its entirety.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 3208.3psychiatric injurygood faith personnel actionssubstantial evidencesubstantial causeRolda analysisPanel QMEDr. Ryan Davis
References
1
Case No. ADJ9946508
Regular
Nov 03, 2017

DOUGLAS JACKSON vs. COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, CORVEL CORPORATION

This case involves a civil engineer claiming industrial psychiatric injury due to workplace stressors. The administrative law judge initially found the applicant did not sustain industrial psychiatric injury, determining the employer's actions were lawful, non-discriminatory, and good-faith personnel actions. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the initial decision lacked a sufficient *Rolda* analysis. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings to fully address the employer's good-faith personnel action defense and its substantial contribution to the claimed injury.

WCABindustrial injurypsychepredominant causelawful personnel actionsnondiscriminatorygood faithPQMEbipolar II disordercumulative trauma
References
0
Case No. ADJ1259913 (LBO 0390101) ADJ4077421 (LBO 0390100)
Regular
Feb 24, 2014

BELINDA WEATHERSBY vs. ABBOT LABORATORIES, FINANCIAL INSURANCE GUARANTY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated a prior award concerning applicant's psychological injury claim. The Board found that the administrative law judge did not fully address the employer's affirmative defenses of a good faith personnel action. Therefore, the case is remanded for the judge to conduct a *Rolda* analysis and re-evaluate the good faith personnel action defense. Issues regarding post-termination claims and temporary disability benefits were addressed, with the post-termination claims being dismissed, but the question of temporary disability benefits requires further development.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjurySales AssociateTemporary Disability IndemnityAffirmative DefenseLawful Personnel ActionPost-Termination ClaimLabor Code Section 3208.3(h)Labor Code Section 3600(a)(10)
References
7
Case No. ADJ8307593
Regular
Apr 20, 2015

BENJAMIN ILORI vs. PACIFIC PALMS CONFERENCE RESORT, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed a prior decision finding the applicant did not sustain injury arising out of and occurring in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The applicant alleged psychological injury due to perceived workplace mistreatment and discrimination, including denied promotions. The Board found that the applicant's perceived mistreatment was not substantiated by credible evidence, and any actual personnel actions were lawful, nondiscriminatory, and in good faith. Under the *Rolda* analysis, since all identified employment events were lawful personnel actions, the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for compensable injury.

AOE/COEpsyche injurycardiovascular systemcirculatory systemmistreatmentdiscriminationpersonnel actionsRolda v. Pitney Bowlesgood faith personnel actionpredominant cause
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 378 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