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. 13-01-801-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

Edward Ybarra v. H. B. Zachry Company

Edward Ybarra worked for H. B. Zachry Company intermittently and was laid off in June 1998. He filed a workers' compensation claim in August 1997 after a 'fume incident.' Ybarra sued Zachry, alleging that the company failed to recall him for employment as retaliation for filing his workers' compensation claim. The trial court granted Zachry's motion for a directed verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, stating that Texas Labor Code Section 451.001 prohibits discriminatory discharge but does not create a cause of action for failure to rehire.

Directed VerdictRetaliationWorkers' Compensation ClaimFailure to RehireEmployment LawTexas Labor CodeDiscriminatory DischargeAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCause of Action
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ronald M.

The Erie County Department of Social Services (DSS) obtained temporary custody of Ronald M., Jr. based on a neglect petition alleging the mother's mental illness and substance abuse, and a prior neglect adjudication for an older sibling. At trial, the evidence from a child protective worker, a psychiatrist, and a nurse was deemed insufficient to prove current neglect. The Family Court granted the respondents' motions to dismiss. On appeal, DSS solely relied on the principle that prior neglect of one child is admissible to prove neglect of another, but the appellate court found this insufficient to sustain a neglect finding given the 16-month gap since the prior order and a lack of proof of non-compliance or new concerning behavior by the parents. The order dismissing the neglect petition was unanimously affirmed.

Child NeglectFamily LawAppellate CourtSufficiency of EvidencePrior AdjudicationParental FitnessChild Protective ServicesDomestic ViolenceMental Health IssuesSubstance Abuse History
References
2
Case No. M2006-02783-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2008

State of Tennessee v. Ronald Brown

Ronald Steven Brown was convicted of multiple offenses including attempted first-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, assault, aggravated assault, felony evading arrest, and DUI, receiving an effective sentence of forty-three years. He appealed, alleging errors regarding unpreserved transcripts of pretrial motions and sentencing hearings, excessive sentencing, an amended indictment after the jury was sworn, and sentencing in violation of Gomez v. Tenn. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments of the trial court. The appellate court found that Brown failed to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 by not preparing a statement of the evidence to reconstruct the record, which proved fatal to all issues raised on appeal.

Criminal AppealSentencing IssuesDue ProcessMissing TranscriptsAppellate Procedure Rule 24Indictment AmendmentExcessive SentenceAttempted First Degree MurderAttempted Second Degree MurderAggravated Assault
References
9
Case No. CA 10-02491
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2012

LUCAS, RONALD, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal from a judgment confirming two arbitration awards. The first award found that the respondents violated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by disregarding a binding past practice where the most senior caulker supervisor was offered the right of first refusal for an acting-time position. The second award directed the respondents to pay Donald Mackowiak $54,282.71 and Ronald French $1,094.99 in back pay and lost overtime for their failure to provide this right. The respondents argued on appeal that the awards violated Civil Service Law §§ 61(2) and 64(2), were against public policy, speculative, irrational, and exceeded the arbitrator's power. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, holding that the awards did not violate the Civil Service Law, as temporary appointments under § 64(2) do not require emergency situations. The court also found no public policy violation, citing an employer's ability to limit its discretion by agreement or established past practice, especially when safety is not a concern. The damages were deemed non-speculative, and the awards were found to be rational and within the arbitrator's authority, supported by evidence of a past practice.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementCivil Service LawPublic Policy ChallengeWaiver of DiscretionPast Practice DoctrineActing-Time PositionRight of First RefusalDamages for Lost WagesAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. ADJ8841436
Regular
Jul 11, 2014

RONALD LAWRENCE vs. JOHN MUIR HEALTH

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Ronald Lawrence's petition for reconsideration of the denial of his back injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Judge found Lawrence not credible, citing inconsistencies in his account of the injury. The medical records were ambiguous and the judge gave great weight to his credibility determination, adopting the judge's reasoning for the denial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJCredibilityBurden of ProofDisputed InjuryTestimonial EvidenceMedical RecordsLabor CodeAdmissibility of Evidence
References
1
Case No. M2012-02263-CCA-R3-CD
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2014

State of Tennessee v. Ronald W. Damon

Ronald W. Damon was convicted in Rutherford County Circuit Court of two counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. He was subsequently sentenced to an effective seventy-three years. On appeal, Damon raised multiple issues, including the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court's denial of his motion for acquittal or a new trial, alleged errors in trial procedure (like an eight-day break), exclusion of 9-1-1 operator testimony, admission of an incriminating letter, admission of prior bad acts evidence, playing portions of his pretrial video statement, limitations on cross-examination, and various sentencing errors. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the judgments of the trial court, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions, there were no reversible errors in trial procedure or evidence admission, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing.

KidnappingRobberyBurglaryConspiracySufficiency of EvidenceSentencing ReviewConsecutive SentencesDangerous OffenderAlibi DefenseHearsay Exception
References
47
Case No. 14-10-00254-CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2011

Craig Ronald Harrison v. State

Craig Ronald Harrison was convicted of third-degree felony theft after being identified from surveillance video and other witness testimony at a Sears store. He was sentenced to 99 years' imprisonment. On appeal to the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Harrison raised eight points of error, including challenges to a Batson ruling, the admission of video evidence, the sufficiency of evidence for the value of stolen goods, in-court identifications, the denial of a directed verdict, and jury instructions related to extraneous offenses and disregarded testimony. The Court of Appeals reviewed each point and ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error.

theftfelonyappealBatson challengeevidence sufficiencyidentificationjury instructionsextraneous offensesdue processTexas law
References
64
Case No. CV-23-0674
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Ronald Winkelman

Ronald Winkelman, a claimant in a workers' compensation case, sustained work-related injuries in 2000 and 2018. Following the 2018 injury, he received treatment and was assessed with a temporary partial disability, leading to lifting restrictions. After his employer could not accommodate these restrictions and terminated him, Winkelman secured per diem employment. The employer and its carrier alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a, claiming Winkelman made false statements regarding his work activities while receiving benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found no such violation, concluding that Winkelman's activities, including assisting his spouse, did not exceed his medical restrictions. The Board also determined that Winkelman was entitled to a reduced earnings award, finding he demonstrated attachment to the labor market. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and noting the Board's role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFraud AllegationReduced Earnings AwardTemporary Partial DisabilityIndependent Medical ExaminationBoard Decision AffirmationWitness CredibilitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewLabor Market Attachment
References
14
Case No. 05-12-01102-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 2014

Ronald Kinabrew v. Inergy Propane, LLC

Ronald Kinabrew sued Inergy Propane, LLC for retaliatory discharge after his termination, alleging it was retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim. Inergy contended the termination resulted from the neutral application of its leave-of-absence policy, as Kinabrew's absence exceeded the twelve-week maximum. The trial court granted summary judgment for Inergy, dismissing Kinabrew's claim. Kinabrew appealed, arguing there was a causal connection between his workers' compensation claim and his termination, and that Inergy's leave policy was not uniformly applied. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Kinabrew failed to provide controverting evidence that Inergy's neutral leave policy was not uniformly enforced or that his termination was retaliatory.

Retaliatory dischargeWorkers' compensation claimSummary judgmentLeave of absence policyUniform enforcementCausal linkLabor codeEmployment lawMedical leaveTexas Court of Appeals
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Ybarra

This case involves an appeal by Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company from a no-answer default judgment in a worker's compensation claim filed by Rebecca Ybarra. The appellant's motions for a new trial were denied by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that Liberty Mutual failed to demonstrate its failure to answer was not due to conscious indifference and did not establish a meritorious defense with sufficient factual detail, as required by the Craddock test for setting aside default judgments.

worker's compensationdefault judgmentnew trial motionappellate reviewCraddock testconscious indifferencemeritorious defenseabuse of discretionprocedural lawTexas courts
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 279 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