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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. 01-23-00245-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

Johnnie Melton and Shelley Melton v. Big Creek Construction, Ltd. and WFMM, LLC

Appellants Johnnie and Shelley Melton sued Appellees Big Creek Construction, Ltd. and WFMM, LLC for negligence after Johnnie Melton was severely injured in a head-on vehicle collision with Tomas Treto-Trinidad, an employee of Big Creek. The Meltons brought claims for direct liability (negligence, negligent entrustment, negligent supervision or control, negligent training, and gross negligence) and vicarious liability. The central issue was whether Trinidad was acting in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the collision, invoking the 'coming and going rule' and its 'special mission exception.' Big Creek and WFMM moved for summary judgment, arguing Trinidad was commuting and had violated company policy by using a company trailer and fuel card for personal travel while intoxicated. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Big Creek and WFMM. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Trinidad was commuting and not acting in the course and scope of his employment, and the 'special mission exception' did not apply as his actions were not an assigned duty for the employer's benefit.

Summary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNegligenceCourse of EmploymentComing and Going RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionAutomobile AccidentDrunk DrivingEmployee Misconduct
References
55
Case No. 13-04-00550-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2005

in Re: Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc.

Linda Garcia, a truck driver for Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc., was injured in a vehicular accident and subsequently terminated. Mission deemed the accident 'major preventable' and terminated Garcia under company policy. Garcia sued Mission, alleging wrongful termination in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Mission moved to compel arbitration based on an agreement within its employee health and safety plan, which the trial court denied. Mission then filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The Court of Appeals reviewed the petition, concluded the trial court erred in denying the motion to compel arbitration, and conditionally granted the writ of mandamus, directing the trial court to withdraw its order.

Arbitration AgreementWrit of MandamusWrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimFederal Arbitration ActEmployment LawInterstate CommerceTruck DriverMotion to Compel ArbitrationAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mission Insurance Co. v. Hill

This case concerns an appeal by Mission Insurance Co. from a post-answer default judgment granted in favor of Edwin Hill in a workers' compensation suit. Mission had failed to appear for both a pretrial hearing and the subsequent trial, leading to the default. The trial court denied Mission's motion for a new trial. On appeal, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that Mission did not conclusively establish that its attorney's failure to appear was not due to conscious indifference. Furthermore, the appellate court held that the trial court could appropriately consider violations of local court procedural rules when ruling on a motion for a new trial.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionConscious IndifferenceAttorney Non-AppearanceProcedural RulesLocal Court RulesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewTrial Court Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon

Roy Solomon sued his former employer, Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc., alleging negligence in the collection of his urine specimen during a mandatory drug test, which resulted in a false positive for marijuana. This false result led to his termination and inability to secure subsequent employment as a truck driver. A jury found Mission negligent and awarded Solomon damages for medical care, lost earning capacity, mental anguish, and exemplary damages for malice. On appeal, Mission challenged several aspects, including the existence of a duty, proximate cause, and the recoverability of damages. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Mission owed its employees a duty of reasonable care in drug test specimen collection and that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings of negligence, causation, and malice.

NegligenceDrug ScreeningFalse PositiveEmployment LawDamagesMental AnguishExemplary DamagesDepartment of TransportationSpecimen CollectionEmployer Duty
References
16
Case No. NUMBER 13-17-00102-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Mary Dreese

This interlocutory appeal addresses the denial of Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in a wrongful death lawsuit. The lawsuit was brought by Mary Dreese, Dolores Perez, Jessica M. Perez, and Jennifer L. Perez (Plaintiffs and Intervenors) following the death of Francisco Perez, a Mission employee, in a truck accident. Mission, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance, had an Employee Health and Safety Plan containing an arbitration clause. The Plaintiffs and Intervenors argued this clause was unenforceable due to an illusory promise in the Plan's termination section, which they claimed gave Mission unilateral control. The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, concluding that the challenge to the termination provision applied to the entire Plan, not just the arbitration clause, and therefore, under the Federal Arbitration Act and state contract law, the issue of enforceability should be decided by an arbitrator, not the courts. The case was remanded for the trial court to grant Mission's motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationEmployment DisputeWrongful DeathInterlocutory AppealContract LawIllusory PromiseFederal Arbitration ActEmployer LiabilityNon-subscriberTexas Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ7269472
Regular
Mar 20, 2012

SHARON EWEGBEMI vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a WCJ's finding that the applicant did not sustain an injury in the course of employment. The applicant argued exceptions to the going-and-coming rule, including special mission, dual purpose, special risk, and required vehicle exceptions. Reconsideration was granted because crucial hearing minutes and summary of evidence were missing from the record, and the original WCJ was unavailable. This prevents the Board from issuing a just decision and necessitates further review.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Risk ExceptionRequired Vehicle ExceptionCourse of EmploymentSidewalk InjuryConstructive PremisesPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ8241674
Regular
Dec 24, 2014

DAMON BAGLEY vs. CITY OF CLOVIS POLICE DEPARTMENT

This case concerns whether a police officer injured in a commute-related car accident sustained an industrial injury. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's finding, determining the injury was not compensable under the "going and coming" rule. The majority found no special mission because the employer lacked sufficient control and the officer's early arrival provided no clear benefit. A dissenting opinion argued the officer fell under the uniformed officer exception and was on a special mission due to the emergency call-in.

Going and coming ruleSpecial mission exceptionIndustrial injuryWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of Clovis Police DepartmentUniformed officer exceptionMotor vehicle accidentCall-inEmergency callDepartment-issued cell phone
References
15
Case No. ADJ10204439
Regular
Sep 02, 2016

JEFF SMITH vs. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of Riverside's petition for reconsideration. The Board found that Deputy Sheriff Jeff Smith's injury, sustained en route to mandatory employer-ordered training, fell under the "special mission" exception to the "going and coming rule." The training's deviation in location, time, and nature from Smith's regular duties satisfied the three-part test for a special mission. Therefore, Smith's injury was deemed to have arisen out of and occurred in the course of employment.

going and coming rulespecial mission exceptionspecial errand exceptionDeputy Sherifftraffic investigation classBen Clark Training Centermotor vehicle accidentcourse of employmentroutine dutiesemployer's benefit
References
10
Case No. ADJ10147686
Regular
Jun 12, 2017

TOBY LAPESARDE vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision finding the applicant's injury compensable. The Board rescinded the original findings and returned the case for further proceedings to determine if the "special risk" exception to the going-and-coming rule applies. The WCJ initially found the injury compensable under the "special mission" exception, but the Board noted credibility issues regarding the applicant's assertion of mandatory overtime. The applicant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while commuting home after working a double shift.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryLicensed Vocational NursePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionSpecial Risk ExceptionMandatory OvertimeCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 3,099 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