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. ADJ10465483
Regular
Oct 31, 2018

SONIA IBANEZ JIMENEZ (Dec'd) vs. DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE, INC. DAVITA DIALYSIS, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by an unnamed petitioner concerning the death of Sonia Ibanez Jimenez. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only upon a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate such prejudice or that reconsideration would be an inadequate remedy. Therefore, the petition for removal was denied.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ reportExtraordinary RemedyADJ10465483DVA Renal HealthcareDavita Dialysis
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Jimenez v. Estate of Jimenez

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. Julio Jimenez, while operating a grocery business owned by the estate of his deceased brother Roberto, was murdered. Julio's wife, Amparo Jimenez, filed for workers' compensation benefits for herself and their three minor children. The Board found an employer-employee relationship existed between Julio and Roberto's estate, a decision contested by the Uninsured Employers’ Fund. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the estate, by accepting the benefits of Julio's efforts, was estopped from denying an employment relationship.

Employment RelationshipEstate LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHomicideUninsured Employers' FundAppellate ReviewEstoppelDependent BenefitsBusiness OperationVolunteer Services
References
1
Case No. 14-17-00870-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2019

Sonya Ashley v. North Houston Pole Line, L.P. and Joaquin Jimenez

Sonya Ashley appealed a final judgment awarding her $207,617.44 in actual damages for negligence against North Houston Pole Line, L.P. and Joaquin Jimenez. Ashley claimed her vehicle was hit by a truck driven by Jimenez in the scope of his employment with North Houston. The jury awarded damages, and Ashley moved for judgment on this verdict. On appeal, Ashley contended the trial court erred in admitting expert testimony and that the damages were against the great weight of the evidence. However, the appellate court held that Ashley waived her two issues on appeal because she moved for judgment on the jury's verdict without reserving the right to complain or filing a motion for a new trial. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Legal precedentWaiver of appealJury verdictDamagesExpert testimonyNegligence claimAppellate procedureTexas lawFinal judgmentPreservation of error
References
9
Case No. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Dec 16, 2015

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of its intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days due to a pattern of misconduct, frivolous tactics, and failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionAppeals Board en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentWCJDiscovery abuse
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 257
Significant

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days, citing a pattern of bad-faith tactics, frivolous actions, and repeated failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionWCAB en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsUnnecessary delayLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentRepeated misconduct
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Feb 18, 2016

vs. JAVIER JIMENEZ

The Appeals Board suspended the privilege of Javier Jimenez to appear as a representative for 180 days due to his failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Suspend, which was based on non-compliance with prior sanction orders.

WCABLabor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionNotice of IntentionSanction ordersEn banc decisionAdministrative law judgeCompliance180-day suspensionFurther hearing
References
0
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00611
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2015

Jimenez v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Plaintiff Ruben Jimenez, a driller, sustained injuries when a 500-pound rock anchor fell and struck him at a construction site for the Long Island Railroad extension project. He moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), which was initially denied by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the prior order, granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability for his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court found that plaintiff established a prima facie case that he was struck by an unsecured falling object, which was a proximate cause of his injuries, and that defendants failed to present a valid defense.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityWorkplace InjuryDemolition WorkExcavation WorkProximate CauseAppellate Decision
References
3
Case No. Misc. No. 257
Significant

vs. Javier Jimenez, Respondent

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board suspends the privilege of Javier Jimenez to appear as a party representative for 180 days, with the suspension continuing until he complies with prior sanction orders, following his failure to respond to a Notice of Intention.

WCABJavier JimenezRepresentative PrivilegeSuspensionLabor Code Section 4907En BancNotice Of IntentionSanction OrdersComplianceAdministrative Law Judges
References
1
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00435 [234 AD3d 945]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Gomez-Jimenez v. Wilson

Fausto Gomez-Jimenez, injured in Brooklyn while driving for his employer DRV Xpress, LLC, received New Jersey workers' compensation benefits. His vehicle was struck by Nyaisha Wilson. Wilson's insurer tendered its $25,000 policy limit, leading DRV's insurer, BerkleyNet Insurance Company, to place a subrogation lien on the settlement for the workers' compensation costs. The plaintiffs moved to vacate this lien, but the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied their motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial, ruling that New Jersey law governs the reimbursement rights for benefits paid in New Jersey, thereby upholding BerkleyNet's subrogation lien.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSubrogation LienNew Jersey LawAppellate ReviewThird-Party ClaimInsurance ReimbursementPolicy LimitsEmployer's Rights
References
5
Case No. 14-10-00780-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2011

John Giraldo v. Juan J. Jimenez Pavia

John Giraldo brought a restricted appeal against Juan J. Jimenez Pavia, challenging a summary judgment granted in Pavia's favor. Pavia had sued Giraldo for wrongfully withholding a security deposit in violation of the Texas Property Code. The trial court awarded Pavia damages and attorney's fees. Giraldo contended that genuine issues of material fact existed and that the attorney's fees were improperly awarded due to an unnotarized affidavit. The appellate court affirmed the portion of the judgment awarding damages, finding that Pavia established a prima facie case of bad faith retention, which Giraldo failed to rebut with summary judgment evidence. However, the court reversed and remanded the award of attorney's fees, agreeing that the unnotarized affidavit was incompetent evidence. Giraldo's arguments regarding bad faith litigation and improper service of requests for admissions were overruled.

Texas Property CodeSecurity DepositSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesRestricted AppealBad Faith RetentionLandlord-Tenant LawAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary RulesUnnotarized Affidavit
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 99 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