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. ADJ7390255
Regular
Jan 03, 2023

DARNELLA SCOTT STREET vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision allowing a lien claim for an H-Wave machine. The applicant found more relief with the H-Wave than a TENS unit. The Agreed Medical Examiner opined that while not convinced the H-Wave was superior to other inferential stimulation units, it was superior to a TENS unit. The WCAB found the lien claimant met its burden of proof regarding the medical necessity of the H-Wave.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictAthens AdministratorsPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgesubstantial evidenceElectronic Waveform LabsH-WaveTENS unitinferential stimulation unit
References
5
Case No. ADJ9770624; ADJ10440533
Regular
Jun 09, 2025

SUMUDU JAYASURIYA vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The applicant, Sumudu Jayasuriya, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) from March 7, 2025, concerning a low back injury sustained in 2014 while employed by San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. The WCJ had found 16% permanent disability and entitlement to further medical treatment. The applicant contended that Dr. Holmes's medical reporting was not substantial evidence, the WCJ failed to consider his post-trial briefs, and defendant's attorney engaged in misconduct. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's reliance on Dr. Holmes's report as substantial medical evidence, affirming the WCJ's decision regarding post-trial briefs, and finding no basis for the alleged attorney misconduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTrain Control Electronic TechnicianLow Back InjuryTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent Disability IndemnityStipulations with Request for AwardNew and Further DisabilityQualified Medical Examiner
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dallas Area Rapid Transit v. Johnson

This case involves an appeal by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) of an adverse judgment in a suit brought by former employee Charles Johnson. Johnson alleged he was discharged from his bus driver position in violation of Tex. Lab.Code ANN. § 451.001 after filing a worker's compensation claim. DART had policies regarding extended absence from work and an unwritten policy to retain or reinstate employees who produced a full work release during the grievance process. Johnson was terminated after 623 days of absence and presented a full work release at a rescheduled Trial Board hearing, which subsequently denied his grievance because the release was not provided on the originally scheduled hearing date. The trial court found that Johnson was discriminated against. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding there was no evidence to establish a necessary causal connection between Johnson's worker's compensation claim and his discharge, as the circumstantial evidence was equally consistent with the Trial Board's decision regarding the medical release policy.

Worker's Compensation ClaimWrongful TerminationCausal ConnectionCircumstantial EvidenceGrievance ProcedureMedical Release PolicyEmployer PolicyTrial Board DecisionAppealTexas Labor Code
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2001

Stephens v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Curtis Stephens, an at-will employee, sued Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) for wrongful discharge under section 451.001 of the labor code, alleging retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims. Stephens was terminated after accumulating 162 absences following a work-related injury, a decision upheld by DART's internal Trial Board. The trial court applied a substantial evidence standard, issued a take-nothing judgment against Stephens, and granted DART partial summary judgment on Stephens' claims for attorney's fees and exemplary damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the partial summary judgment regarding attorney's fees and exemplary damages, holding that attorney's fees are not recoverable as 'reasonable damages' under section 451.002 and that exemplary damages cannot be assessed against DART, a political subdivision. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the remainder of the trial court's judgment on the wrongful discharge claim, concluding that the doctrines of election of remedies and res judicata did not bar Stephens' statutory claim and that the claim had not been properly heard. A supplemental opinion on DART's motion for rehearing reaffirmed the initial decision, clarifying the inapplicability of the *City of Odessa v. Barton* precedent.

Wrongful DischargeRetaliation ClaimWorkers' Compensation ClaimsElection of RemediesRes JudicataAttorney's FeesExemplary DamagesGovernmental ImmunityPolitical SubdivisionAt-Will Employment
References
25
Case No. NO. 02-12-00517-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (The T) v. Agent Systems, Inc.

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) and Fort Worth Transportation Authority (the T) appealed a jury verdict in favor of Agent Systems, Inc. The core dispute involved a contract for validating fareboxes, which DART and the T eventually ceased work on, leading Agent Systems to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and later sue for damages under a termination for convenience clause. The appellate court reviewed issues regarding the standard of review, jury charge, sufficiency of evidence, and the award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the merits, finding sufficient evidence that DART and the T breached the contract by improperly terminating it for default instead of for convenience. However, the court reversed and remanded for a recalculation of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, adjusting the rate from six to five percent and requiring the trial court to redetermine the accrual date.

Breach of ContractGovernment ContractTermination for ConvenienceTermination for DefaultJury Verdict ReviewSufficiency of EvidencePrejudgment InterestPostjudgment InterestContractual DisputeAdministrative Remedies
References
35
Case No. 13-14-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2015

San Patricio County, Texas v. Nueces County, Texas and Nueces County Appraisal District

This is a reply brief filed by San Patricio County, Texas, in an appeal against Nueces County and Nueces County Appraisal District. The core issue revolves around unresolved boundary disputes between the two counties, leading to double taxation for industrial taxpayers like Occidental Petroleum Company. San Patricio County argues that the Nueces County District Court lacked jurisdiction and venue, and erred in granting summary judgment without determining the boundary line. They assert that the 2003 Judgment, which declared 'natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline of San Patricio County shall form a part of San Patricio County,' includes docks, piers, and similar facilities as part of their county, consistent with maritime law and riparian rights. The county seeks reversal of the trial court's decision, either for transfer back to a neutral Refugio County District Court, or for a judgment declaring the disputed properties within San Patricio County's jurisdiction, or for a remand to resolve factual issues concerning the boundary.

County Boundary DisputeJurisdictionVenueSummary JudgmentCollateral Attack2003 Judgment InterpretationShoreline ModificationsDocks and PiersRiparian RightsTaxation Dispute
References
23
Case No. 13-99-275-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2000

Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd., D/B/A Columbia Bayview Psychiatric Center v. Rayburn, William H.

William H. Rayburn, a 58-year-old former director of maintenance, sued his employer, Bay Area Healthcare Group, for age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) following his termination. A jury found in favor of Rayburn, awarding back pay, compensatory damages, and exemplary damages. Bay Area appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for liability and damages, and also arguing for a new trial based on a change in law from Kolstad v. American Dental Ass'n. The Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for compensatory damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees, but modified the back pay award, reducing it from $83,000 to $69,925.35. The court overruled Bay Area's remaining issues, including the request for a new trial based on Kolstad.

Age DiscriminationWrongful TerminationTexas Commission on Human Rights ActTCHRABack PayCompensatory DamagesExemplary DamagesMitigation of DamagesEvidentiary SufficiencyPretext
References
48
Case No. ADJ10440533
Regular
Apr 20, 2020

SUMUDU JAYASURIYA vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the original Findings and Award due to insufficient substantial evidence. The WCAB found that the chiropractor QME's reports did not adequately explain the basis for combining wrist range of motion impairment with grip strength impairment, particularly in relation to the AMA Guides. The case is returned to the WCJ for further development of the record, likely through an evaluation by an orthopedic hand specialist, to properly assess the applicant's permanent disability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSan Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit DistrictSumudu JayasuriyaQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Dennis M. SosineD.C.left upper extremity injurypermanent partial disabilityrange of motiongrip strength
References
6
Case No. ADJ14778693
Regular
Oct 29, 2025

DARRELL DICKERSON vs. SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS, INC.

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to study legal and factual issues. Defendant sought reconsideration of Findings of Fact and Orders (F&O) issued by the WCJ, which denied a replacement Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel and affirmed Dr. Lucas Campos as the valid QME. The Board applied a removal standard to the interlocutory finding challenged by the petitioner and found that significant prejudice or irreparable harm would result if removal was denied. Consequently, the Board rescinded the F&O and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, specifically to reconsider whether good cause exists to order a replacement QME panel, in light of the Vazquez case factors.

PQMEAD Rule 31.3(e)AD Rule 31.5(a)(2)replacement panelreevaluationunavailabilityAppeals Boardremoval standardthreshold issueinterlocutory issue
References
9
Case No. 13-07-005-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District v. Sandra Acosta

This appeal concerns a retaliatory discharge case filed by Sandra Acosta (appellee) against Pharr-San Juan-Alamo Independent School District (appellant). Acosta alleged she was terminated in violation of section 451.001 of the Texas Labor Code for filing a workers' compensation claim. The school district filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing sovereign immunity had not been waived. The trial court denied the plea and awarded $4,500 in sanctions to Acosta. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that governmental immunity was indeed waived under Labor Code § 451.001 and Government Code § 311.034, thus subjecting school districts to such discrimination claims, and also found no abuse of discretion in the imposition of sanctions.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental Immunity WaiverRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimPlea to the JurisdictionTrial Court SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionTexas Labor CodeTexas Government CodeInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,957 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