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. ADJ11995067
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

ADELINA PEREZ vs. KYONG AE YUN, CHONG MYON YUN, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Adelina Perez sought removal of a May 9, 2022, Findings & Order (F&O) by a workers’ compensation administrative law judge (WCJ), which found Dr. Marcel Ponton's medical-legal report inadmissible and ordered his replacement, arguing Dr. Ponton was a treating physician to whom Labor Code section 4062.3 did not apply. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the petition as one for reconsideration and found that Dr. Ponton was indeed a treating physician, not a panel-selected medical-legal evaluator, rendering section 4062.3 inapplicable. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's F&O, substituted new findings affirming Dr. Ponton's role as a treating physician, and ordered his continuation as the medical-legal neuropsychological evaluator.

RemovalReconsiderationLabor Code section 4062.3Ex parte communicationMedical-legal evaluatorTreating physicianMPNNeuropsychological assessmentTraumatic brain injuryAdmissibility of evidence
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

Windsor v. United States

This case addresses Edie Windsor's constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage exclusively as between one man and one woman. This definition required Windsor to pay federal estate tax on her late same-sex spouse's estate, a tax from which heterosexual couples were exempt. Windsor contended that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened to defend DOMA's constitutionality. The Court denied BLAG's motion to dismiss and granted Windsor's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to Windsor and awarded her $353,053.00 plus interest and costs.

Constitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseFifth AmendmentDefense of Marriage ActDOMASame-sex MarriageFederal Estate TaxSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissJudicial Scrutiny
References
62
Case No. ADJ10886261
Regular
Nov 14, 2018

LUIS SANDOVAL vs. PRIME TECH CABINETS, INC, SECURITY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinded the WCJ's prior order, and returned the case for further proceedings. The original order found violations of Labor Code section 4062.3(b) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 35(c), striking the Qualified Medical Evaluator's report. This reversal was based on a subsequent en banc decision in *Suon v. California Dairies* that clarified the interpretation and remedies for violations of section 4062.3(b). The trial judge will reconsider the section 4062.3(b) issue and potentially other previously raised issues concerning the QME's reporting.

Petition for RemovalFindings and OrderQualified Medical EvaluatorMedical ReportingLabor Code section 4062.3(b)California Code of Regulations section 35(c)En Banc DecisionSuon v. California DairiesRescindedReturned to Trial Level
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez

The case "F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez" involves a dissenting opinion from a Texas Supreme Court decision concerning the application of proportionate-responsibility statutes to Dram Shop Act claims. The Dueñez family sued F.F.P., a convenience store, after a head-on collision caused by an intoxicated driver who purchased alcohol from F.F.P., resulting in severe injuries. Justice O'Neill's dissent argues that the majority's decision erred by undermining the Dram Shop Act's derivative-liability component, which holds providers responsible for their customers' actions and ensures full recovery for innocent third parties. The dissent contends that the legislative intent was to deter alcohol sales to obviously intoxicated individuals and protect public welfare, a policy compromised by the majority's interpretation that shifts responsibility to potentially insolvent patrons.

Dram Shop ActProportionate ResponsibilityVicarious LiabilityComparative NegligenceAlcoholic Beverage CodeThird-Party InjuryIntoxicated DriverLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
15
Case No. 01-15-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2015

in the Interest of A.G. and F.G., Children

This is an appellant's brief appealing the termination of parental rights for children A.G. and F.G., involving S.F. (mother) and the Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). DFPS intervened after reports of child neglect, including F.G. found unsupervised. The mother, S.F., has a history of mental health issues (depression, bipolar disorder), marijuana use, and unstable housing, and allegedly failed to comply with court-ordered service plans. The trial court terminated her parental rights under Texas Family Code Section 161.001(1)(D), (E), (L), and (O), also finding it to be in the children's best interest. The appellant argues that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support the termination and the 'best interest' finding, emphasizing A.G.'s expressed desire against termination and potential instability in the children's current kinship placement with their godmother.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectInsufficient EvidenceBest Interest of ChildSubstance AbuseMental Health IssuesKinship PlacementDomestic RelationsTexas Family CodeAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Differential Development-1994, Ltd. v. Harkrider Distributing Co.

Differential Development and Pro Cleaners, a former shopping center owner and a current dry-cleaning business operator, sued the City of Houston, Harkrider Distributing Co., KSB, Inc., and Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. under CERCLA sections 107(a) and 113(f) for cost recovery and contribution related to PERC contamination. They also brought state-law claims. The plaintiffs argued they were not 'potentially responsible parties' (PRPs) or, alternatively, qualified for an 'innocent landowner' defense. They also contended their voluntary cleanup agreement with the TCEQ constituted a settlement under CERCLA section 113(f)(3)(B). The court determined that Differential Development and Pro Cleaners are indeed PRPs and do not qualify for the innocent landowner defense. The court further ruled that their voluntary cleanup agreement with the TCEQ does not qualify as a settlement under CERCLA section 113(f)(3)(B) and that section 107(a) does not provide a separate cause of action for PRPs to sue other PRPs for cost recovery or contribution. Consequently, the court granted the motions to dismiss all federal CERCLA claims and, declining supplemental jurisdiction, dismissed the remaining state-law claims without prejudice.

Environmental LawCERCLAHazardous WasteDry CleaningPERC ContaminationCost RecoveryContribution ClaimsPRPVoluntary Cleanup ProgramTCEQ
References
116
Case No. 02-0381
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 2006

F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. D/B/A Mr. Cut Rate 602 v. Xavier Duenez, and Wife, Irene Duenez, as Next Friends of Carlos Duenez and Pablo Duenez, Minors

This case addresses the applicability of Texas's proportionate responsibility scheme (Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code) to dram shop liability claims. The Supreme Court of Texas revisited and affirmed its holding in Smith v. Sewell, clarifying that the proportionate responsibility statute includes claims under the Dram Shop Act, meaning a dram shop is only responsible for its proportionate share of damages, not automatically all damages caused by an intoxicated patron. The Court reversed the lower court's judgment, which had found F.F.P. Operating Partners vicariously liable and had severed F.F.P.'s cross-action against the intoxicated driver, Ruiz. The Supreme Court found that the trial court abused its discretion by severing the claim and refusing to submit jury questions on Ruiz's proportion of responsibility. The case was remanded for a new trial to allow for proper apportionment of responsibility among all liable parties.

Dram Shop ActProportionate ResponsibilityComparative ResponsibilityVicarious LiabilityNegligent EntrustmentProximate CauseStatutory InterpretationSeverance of ClaimsApportionment of DamagesIntoxication Assault
References
21
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. CA 11-02000
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2012

OLSEN, MICHAEL JAMES v. KOZLOWSKI, SHIRLEY F.

Plaintiff Michael James Olsen commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained from falling during residence construction. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants Louis F. Kozlowski and Shirley F. Kozlowski (property owners) cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted dismissal against Louis F. Kozlowski and denied dismissal against Shirley F. Kozlowski, also granting plaintiff's motion against Shirley F. Kozlowski. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying plaintiff's motion in its entirety, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Shirley F. Kozlowski was an officer of the employer, which could bar the action under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6).

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationOfficer LiabilityEmployer ImmunityConstruction AccidentFall from Height
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 6,807 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