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. No. 05-20-00835-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2022

G Force Framing LLC, Kerry Graves, Kerry Graves on Behalf of G Force Framing LLC, and Kerry Graves D/B/A G Force Framing v. MacSouth Forest Products, L.L.C. v. Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC, SC Switchyard, LLC, XL Specially Insurance Company and Travelers Surely and Casually Company

G Force Framing LLC (G Force) and Kerry Graves appealed the trial court's final judgment from Dallas County, Texas, which had dismissed G Force's claims and discharged its mechanic's liens. The trial court ruled based on G Force's prior tax forfeiture and alleged lack of capacity to sue. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that G Force was not a 'terminated entity' under the Texas Business Organizations Code because its tax forfeiture was eventually set aside, thus allowing it to pursue its claims. The appellate court also found the indemnity bonds filed by Stoneleigh Construction Company, LLC were insufficient to discharge the mechanic's liens. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Graves's individual claims as they belonged solely to the corporation.

Tax ForfeitureCorporate ReinstatementCapacity to SueSummary JudgmentRule 91a Motion to DismissMechanic's LiensIndemnity BondsStatutory InterpretationTexas Business Organizations CodeTexas Tax Code
References
61
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frame v. Frame

The case concerns an appeal by Mrs. Fannie S. Frame, the widow of David A. Frame, against the executor of his estate. She sought to enforce a $5,000 promissory note issued by her deceased husband, conditional on her care during his lifetime. The executor filed a cross-action to recover funds withdrawn by the widow from a joint bank account post-mortem. The trial court allowed offsets for the widow's maintenance and funeral expenses. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, affirming the validity of the promissory note and rendering judgment in favor of the appellant.

Promissory NoteConditional NoteEstateWidowExecutorSeparate EstateCommunity PropertyMarital ContractsTexas LawContractual Validity
References
4
Case No. NO. 07-08-0253-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2009

Republic-Vanguard Insurance Company v. Charlie Mize D/B/A Quality Framing and Doug Settler

This case addresses an insurance law coverage dispute concerning the interpretation of the phrase 'and/or' within a workers' compensation exclusion in a commercial general liability policy. Republic-Vanguard Insurance Company appealed a summary judgment that found it had a duty to defend Charlie Mize d/b/a Quality Framing and Doug Settler. Republic argued the exclusion precluded coverage for subcontractors. However, Mize and Settler contended the exclusion only applied to employees of the insured and employees of any subcontractor, not to subcontractors themselves. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the exclusion was unambiguous and applied only to employees, thereby obligating Republic to provide a defense to Mize.

Insurance CoverageContract InterpretationWorkers' Compensation ExclusionDuty to DefendSummary Judgment AppealCommercial General Liability PolicySubcontractor LiabilityPolicy AmbiguityTexas Appellate LawEmployment Injury Claim
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02363 [237 AD3d 1126]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2025

Sisalima v. Thorne Constr., Inc.

The plaintiff, Julio Wilmer Sisalima, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from a roof on January 4, 2019, while working on a project for Limonejo's Framing Corp. He subsequently initiated an action claiming a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and the defendant Limonejo's Framing Corp.'s cross-motion for summary judgment on its defenses (sole proximate cause and recalcitrant worker) were denied by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and if their absence proximately caused the accident. Additionally, the court found that the defendant failed to prima facie establish that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause or a recalcitrant worker, as there was no evidence he was specifically instructed to use ropes and disregarded them.

Fall from RoofLabor Law ViolationSafe Place to WorkProximate CauseRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary Judgment DeniedPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentSafety Devices
References
14
Case No. ADJ473373 (ANA 0406381)
Regular
Feb 10, 2012

FERNANDO GUTIERREZ vs. SOCAL FRAMING aka BMHC; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, administered by ESIS, INC.

This case concerns applicant's claim for extended temporary disability (TD) benefits beyond 104 weeks due to a left eye injury. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's denial of the "amputation" exception, ruling that the surgical removal of an eye does not fit the statutory definition. However, the Board remanded the case for further development of the record on the "high-velocity eye injury" exception, as the velocity and force of the object that struck the applicant's eye were unclear. The applicant's Petition for Removal was dismissed as reconsideration was the appropriate remedy.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardFernando GutierrezSoCal FramingBMHCACE American InsuranceESISInc.ADJ473373ANA 0406381Opinion and Decision
References
1
Case No. ADJ13096148
Regular
Dec 03, 2020

JUSTINO MONTIEL vs. SOCAL FRAMINGS, INC., REDWOOD FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE, BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE INSURANCE COMPANIES

The applicant properly selected Dr. Patterson at Casa Colina as his treating physician for his admitted injury, as Casa Colina is listed as a provider within the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that an acknowledgment of MPN membership is not required for physicians who are shareholders, partners, or employees of a medical group that has elected to participate in the MPN. The defendant failed to provide evidence that Casa Colina's participation was limited to ancillary services. Therefore, the defendant's petition for reconsideration was denied.

Medical Provider NetworkMPNTreating PhysicianLabor Code Section 4600Expedited HearingFindings of FactAncillary ServicesMedical GroupUtilization ReviewPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Case No. ADJ19555636
Regular
Jun 24, 2025

FRAMEE AMOR JONES vs. VISTA KNOLL SPECIALIZED CARE, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

Applicant, Framee Amor Jones, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order from April 9, 2025, which found she did not sustain a psyche injury at work. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) concluded that actual events of employment were not the predominant cause of her claimed psychiatric injury. The Appeals Board reviewed the petition, the defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report. Citing Labor Code sections regarding the 60-day action period and the burden of proof for psychiatric injury causation, the Board affirmed the WCJ's credibility determinations and found no substantial evidence to overturn them. Consequently, the Board denied the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPsychiatric InjuryPredominant CausePreponderance of EvidencePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeOccupational Therapy AssistantIndustrial CausationActual Events of Employment
References
5
Case No. 2024-60-1868
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2024

RECINOS, KENNEDY v. ELEAZAR MARTINEZ d/b/a EXCELLENCE FRAMING, LLC

Mr. Kennedy Recinos, an employee, requested temporary disability benefits, reimbursement of medical expenses, continuing medical treatment, and eligibility for the Uninsured Employers Fund after sustaining a broken collarbone and ribs from falling off a roof while working for Eleazar Martinez d/b/a Excellence Framing, LLC, an uninsured employer. The Court granted his requests for medical expenses totaling $8,688 and temporary total disability benefits of $6,642.86 for an eight-week and six-day period, finding he is likely to prevail at a final hearing. However, his application for benefits from the Uninsured Employers Fund was denied due to untimely notification to the Bureau of his injury and the employer's lack of insurance coverage, which exceeded the 180-day statutory limit. A status conference for the case is scheduled for January 21, 2025.

Workers' CompensationTemporary Disability BenefitsMedical Expense ReimbursementUninsured EmployerUninsured Employers Fund EligibilityNotice RequirementsExpedited HearingWorkplace InjuryFall from RoofCollarbone Fracture
References
3
Case No. ADJ2494845
Regular
Feb 03, 2011

DONALD STENERSEN vs. TWR FRAMING/TWR ENTERPRISES, INC., CHARTIS COSTA MESA

In *Stenersen v. TWR Framing*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The applicant filed the petition more than 25 days after the Workers' Compensation Judge's decision was served, exceeding the jurisdictional 20-day filing period (plus potential mailing extension). The WCAB emphasized that the timely filing of a reconsideration petition is a jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, the Board lacked the authority to grant a petition filed outside the statutory timeframe.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 5903Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013WCAB Rule 10507Jurisdictional Time LimitWCJ DecisionDismissal OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 182 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