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. 05-17-01457-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Charles Chang, M.D. v. Ashley Denny

Dr. Charles Chang performed brain surgery on Ashley Denny in 2006, leaving a cotton ball in her brain, which was discovered during a second surgery in 2011. Denny filed a medical liability claim against Dr. Chang in 2013, approximately seven years after the initial surgery and more than two years after discovering the foreign object. The trial court initially dismissed the claims as time-barred but later granted a new trial, where a jury found Dr. Chang negligent and Denny diligent in pursuing her claim. Dr. Chang appealed, challenging the denial of his motion for Judgment Non Obstante Veredicto (JNOV) on Denny's open courts defense. The dissenting opinion argues that Denny failed to exercise due diligence as a matter of law, given the 25-month delay in filing suit after discovery, and that her explanations (difficulty helping her lawyer and finding an expert) are insufficient to overcome the statute of limitations. The dissent concludes that the law should be applied neutrally, preventing recovery against Dr. Chang and suggesting Denny's recourse should be against her attorney.

Medical MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsOpen Courts DoctrineDue DiligenceForeign ObjectSurgical ErrorJury VerdictJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Practice
References
15
Case No. E2013-01734-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2014

Joshua Wayne Taylor v. Mary Katherine Taylor

This is a post-divorce case concerning the modification of a permanent parenting plan and other relief for the parties' daughter. Mother initially sought to modify the residential parenting schedule, and Father counterclaimed for a modified schedule and a change in custody designation. The trial court found no material change in circumstances to warrant a change in the primary residential parent but found a material change supporting a modification of the residential schedule, significantly increasing Mother's parenting time. Father appealed this decision, raising issues regarding the material change in circumstances, failure to designate him as the primary residential parent, and failure to find Mother in contempt. Mother raised issues concerning deviations from child support guidelines and attorney's fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no error in the denial of a custody change, the modification of the parenting schedule, or the handling of contempt and child support issues.

DivorceChild CustodyParenting Plan ModificationResidential ScheduleMaterial Change in CircumstancesChild Support GuidelinesContempt of CourtAttorney FeesAppellate ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
38
Case No. W2016-01817-COA-R9-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2017

Jane Doe v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.

Jane Doe, a hospitality manager at P.F. Chang's, was robbed and raped by a co-worker during closing procedures. Jane and John Doe filed a tort action against P.F. Chang's, which moved for summary judgment, arguing the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. The trial court denied the motion, finding the injuries did not arise out of employment. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed, concluding that the sexual assault was not a risk inherent to Ms. Doe’s employment, thus the exclusive remedy provision of workers' compensation law did not apply, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workplace AssaultSexual AssaultWorkers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DoctrineSummary JudgmentScope of EmploymentCausal ConnectionRobberyTort LawRestaurant Employee
References
30
Case No. ADJ1407862 ADJ8053285
Regular
Jan 29, 2014

RAYMOND SCHAUER vs. WINDSOR UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, REDWOOD EMPIRE SCHOOL INSURANCE GROUP

In this workers' compensation case, venue is transferred from the Santa Rosa to the San Francisco District Office. This change is necessary because the assigned judge must recuse himself and the alternative judge has been disqualified. The San Francisco Presiding Judge will assign a new judge and schedule a lien conference. This order facilitates the continued proceedings for Applicant Raymond Schauer against Windsor Unified School District.

Venue changeRecusalJudge challengeAppeals Board Rule 10453Santa Rosa District OfficeSan Francisco District OfficePresiding JudgeLien conferencePermissibly Self-InsuredWindsor Unified School District
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

World Trading Corp. v. Kolchin

The plaintiff sought to permanently enjoin the defendant from arbitrating disputes, arguing that the defendant union's change in affiliation from the American Federation of Labor to the Committee for Industrial Organization, along with a name change, altered its legal entity and invalidated their contract. The court disagreed, holding that a union's identity, structure, operation, constitution, by-laws, officers, and membership remain the same despite changes in affiliation and name. The court affirmed that such changes do not affect the union's rights or responsibilities under existing contracts. Therefore, the court found no basis to support the plaintiff's contention.

union affiliationarbitration disputeinjunctioncontract validityorganizational identitylabor lawname changelegal entitytrade unionsAmerican Federation of Labor
References
2
Case No. Misc. No. 254
Significant
Jan 20, 2012

vs. Daniel Escamilla

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismisses a petition for change of venue, denies a request for a stay, but grants a petition for removal. The Board affirms the order relieving the petitioner's counsel, continues the hearing, and sets a new pre-hearing conference schedule to allow the petitioner a final opportunity to obtain new counsel and prepare his case.

Petition for RemovalPetition for Change of VenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJRelief of CounselDue ProcessQuasi-Criminal ProceedingDelegation of AuthorityOffer of ProofSuspension or Removal of Privilege
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dimitracopoulos v. City of New York

Madelyn Dimitracopoulos, a 72-year-old high school English teacher with 52 years of experience, filed an employment discrimination lawsuit alleging age discrimination and retaliation against the NYC Department of Education (DOE) and several individual administrators. She claims unwarranted negative evaluations, changes to her schedule and teaching assignments, and temporary denial of "per session" employment were discriminatory and retaliatory. The court dismissed claims against the City of New York due to separate legal entity status. The judge granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that some of Dimitracopoulos's claims, particularly those related to the temporary loss of "per session" employment and certain negative evaluations by specific administrators, were plausible enough to proceed to trial under federal, state, and city human rights laws. Other claims, such as minor scheduling changes or single involuntary medical examinations, were dismissed as not constituting materially adverse employment actions. The case is set for trial in November 2014, with motions for summary judgment due in October 2014.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsAdverse Employment ActionPer Session EmploymentNegative Performance ReviewsDisparate TreatmentTeacher Rights
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2002

In re the Claim of Miller v. North Syracuse Central School District

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning overlapping workers' compensation awards. The claimant, a food services worker, filed two separate claims: one for occupational disease to her shoulders, leading to a schedule loss of use award, and another for bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, which resulted in a temporary total disability award for the period from December 13, 1999, to February 14, 2000. The State Insurance Fund argued that the schedule loss of use award should be suspended for this period to prevent an overlap. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disagreed, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, ruling in favor of suspending the schedule award. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, clarifying that a schedule award is not allocable to a specific period of disability and therefore does not overlap with a temporary total disability award covering a limited timeframe. The court distinguished this from cases involving permanent disability awards. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for recalculation of the claimant’s award.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseTemporary Total DisabilityOverlapping AwardsEarning CapacityOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeShoulder InjuryAppellate ReviewRecalculation of Award
References
7
Case No. 2019-06-1523
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2020

Williams, John v. All-Star Personnel, Inc.

This scheduling order from the Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims outlines key deadlines for the case of John Williams v. All-Star Personnel, Inc., and Benchmark Ins. Co. The contested issues include medical, temporary, and permanent disability benefits, as well as compensability. Discovery is set to conclude with lay witness depositions by January 31, 2021, and expert witness depositions by March 12, 2021. A post-discovery mediation is scheduled for March 30, 2021. The compensation hearing is set for April 15, 2021, in Nashville, Tennessee. The order also mandates the submission of stipulations, witness and exhibit lists, and prehearing briefs before the compensation hearing. Failure to comply with these deadlines may result in referral to the Penalty/Compliance Division as per Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-118.

SchedulingDiscoveryMediationCompensation HearingDeadlinesNon-complianceWorkers' CompensationEmployee BenefitsEmployer LiabilityInsurer
References
0
Case No. SDO 0340101
Regular
Sep 10, 2007

RITA CORDOVA vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns the application of the 2005 permanent disability rating schedule (PDRS) over the older 1997 PDRS for an applicant injured in 2004. The applicant argued that exceptions in Labor Code section 4660(d) should trigger the 1997 schedule, primarily based on a physician's report predating the schedule change. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original award, finding that recent appellate decisions clarified that the older schedule only applies if a report indicating permanent disability exists prior to January 1, 2005, and the employer was not required to provide notice under Labor Code section 4061 before that date. Therefore, the 2005 PDRS was correctly applied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleLabor Code section 4660(d)Labor Code section 4061Medical-legal reportTreating physician's reportPermanent and stationary statusTemporary disability indemnityIndustrial injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,787 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