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
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. ADJ7087449
Regular
Nov 02, 2012

ELVIRA VASQUEZ vs. DEL MONTE FOODS, ZURICH INSURANCE

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Elvira Vasquez against Del Monte Foods. The defendant sought reconsideration of a prior Appeals Board decision that found applicant sustained an industrial injury and that the defendant failed to prove intoxication was the proximate cause. The defendant argued the applicant's amphetamine use was established and impaired her function, making it a substantial factor in the injury. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, holding that a positive drug test alone is insufficient to prove intoxication or causation, citing precedent that requires further evidence of impaired function or substantial evidence of causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 3600(a)(4)Proximate CauseIntoxicationBurden of ProofAmphetaminesDrug TestImpaired Function
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Village of Union Springs

The Defendants filed for an injunction pending appeal to halt construction by the Cayuga Indian Nation on property within their municipal boundaries, following a prior order enjoining them from enforcing local zoning laws against the Nation. The court applied a four-factor test (likelihood of success on merits, irreparable injury to applicant, substantial injury to other parties, and public interest) to determine if a stay was warranted. The court found that the Defendants failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, failed to show the Nation would not be substantially injured, and that the public interest weighed against a stay, favoring tribal self-governance and economic development. Despite novel legal questions, the court denied the Defendants' motion for an injunction pending appeal.

Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA)Tribal SovereigntyInjunction Pending AppealZoning LawsLand UseIrreparable HarmStay FactorsPublic InterestEconomic DevelopmentFederal Preemption
References
25
Case No. Claim No. 8, Claim No. 14
Regular Panel Decision

In re Pioneer Carriers, LLC

This case concerns objections filed by Pioneer Carriers, LLC (the Debtor) against two proofs of claim by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) for alleged unpaid unemployment taxes under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act. The central issue revolved around determining whether truck drivers operating the Debtor's trucks were employees or independent contractors. Applying the TWC's 20-factor test, the Court found that a substantial majority (14 out of 19 applicable factors) indicated independent contractor status. Consequently, the Court sustained the Debtor's objections, ruling that the truck drivers were independent contractors and thus disallowing the TWC's claims in their entirety. However, the Court noted that a portion of the 2014 claims related to initially hired employees would be subject to further determination.

Independent ContractorEmployee StatusUnemployment CompensationTexas Workforce Commission (TWC)Bankruptcy LawTexas Labor Code20-Factor TestControl TestDebtorClaims Objection
References
45
Case No. 03-14-00735-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Entergy Texas, Inc.// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Entergy Texas, Inc.

The Commission’s Order should be affirmed. The Commission reasonably interpreted its prior rate-case order, the Black-box Order, to authorize Entergy to book and amortize a regulatory asset for unrecovered Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs. The Black-box Order was ambiguous concerning the Rita Asset. That order was based on a “black box” settlement—one where only the amount of rates to be collected was set forth, not all of the individual components of a rate case. Because the Black-box Order did not explicitly state whether booking and amortizing the regulatory asset had been authorized, it was ambiguous. Courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its prior, ambiguous order, and the evidence in the record supports the Commission’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that $13 million should be added to Entergy’s storm reserve based on the expenses Entergy incurred to repair equipment after a severe ice storm in 1997. A prior Commission decision that faulted Entergy for poor service quality did not amount to a finding that Entergy could not include the repair costs in the insurance reserve amount. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy failed to meet its burden to prove that predicted purchased-power capacity costs were known-and-measurable changes to the test-year data. The record supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy did not meet its burden of proving that requested changes were known and measurable. For example, Entergy based its arguments about purchasing capacity on the assumption that it would always purchase the maximum amount under new contracts. Entergy claimed that it would have more customers in the future. Not only is that speculative, but the utility failed to account for how additional customers would otherwise affect its recovery through rates. And Entergy’s arguments about transmission charges are controlled by numerous unknown variables used in a complex formula. The Commission’s test-year rule is created to avoid just such unknowns. Moreover, most of Entergy’s request for post-test-year changes to transmission costs were based on an agreement that was still waiting for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is patently not a “known” change. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decisions, the Order should be affirmed.

Utility RegulationRate CasePublic Utility CommissionAppellate BriefHurricane Rita CostsRegulatory AssetStorm Damage ReservePurchased Power CapacityTransmission EqualizationAdministrative Law
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Antonio Lomeli v. Southwest Shipyard, L.P.

Antonio Lomeli sued Southwest Shipyard, L.P. for negligence after sustaining a serious left leg injury from falling into an open barge hatch while working as a welder. Southwest moved for summary judgment, asserting the exclusive remedy provision of the federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) as an affirmative defense, claiming Lomeli was its “borrowed employee.” Lomeli contested this, arguing Southwest failed to produce a contract and that he presented evidence raising fact issues on multiple factors of the borrowed employee test. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Southwest. On appeal, the court reviewed the nine-factor borrowed employee test, finding most factors weighed in favor of borrowed employee status, even considering some neutral or opposing factors. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Lomeli was Southwest’s borrowed employee, thereby limiting his remedy to LHWCA benefits.

Maritime LawBorrowed Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentNegligenceAffirmative DefenseEmployer LiabilityWorker InjuryTexas Appellate CourtFifth Circuit PrecedentEmployment Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salazar v. Marathon Oil Co.

Plaintiff Barbara Salazar sued Marathon Oil Company for alleged Equal Pay Act violations, claiming she performed work substantially equal to male predecessors but received roughly half their compensation. Marathon argued the jobs were not substantially equal and that any pay disparity was based on factors other than sex, specifically that the male employees were long-term workers demoted into a specially created position with an artificially high pay range due to impaired health. The court found Salazar established a prima facie case, performing work substantially equal to Mr. Clements. However, the court concluded that Marathon successfully rebutted this claim by demonstrating the pay differential was justified by factors other than sex, such as the long-term service and health-related demotions of the male counterparts. Therefore, judgment was entered for the defendant, Marathon Oil Company.

Equal Pay ActFair Labor Standards ActGender DiscriminationWage DisparityJob ClassificationDemotionLong-term EmploymentWork RestrictionsTimekeeping DutiesSteno Clerk
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Xue Ming Wang v. Abumi Sushi Inc.

Plaintiff Xue Ming Wang sued Abumi Sushi Inc. and Qing Zhong Li for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and New York General Business Law § 349 violations, stemming from his employment as a delivery worker. The core legal dispute centered on whether the defendants, who acquired the restaurant's assets in June 2015, were liable for violations predating the sale under successor liability doctrines. The Court considered both traditional common-law and federal common-law 'substantial continuity' tests. It concluded that the traditional test did not apply due to lack of ownership continuity, and under the 'substantial continuity' test, the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants had notice of the alleged pre-sale violations. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion, and dismissed claims related to pre-June 2, 2015 conduct against the appearing defendants.

Successorship LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawGeneral Business Law § 349Wage and Hour ViolationsAsset SaleConstructive NoticeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawLabor Dispute
References
45
Case No. ADJ8002481
Regular
Jun 05, 2012

MICHAEL GAMBILL vs. CONSTRUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC., IMPERIUM INSURANCE COMPANY

In *Gambill v. Construction Testing Services, Inc.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Removal. The Board found that defendant's attorney's late appearance at a Mandatory Settlement Conference was due to an inadvertent calendaring error, not a pattern of misconduct. Therefore, substantial justice warranted allowing the parties to revise their Pretrial Conference Statement before the scheduled trial. The Board's decision permits revised pretrial statements and allows the judge to take further appropriate action at trial, including potential continuances.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceMiscalendaringInadvertent ErrorSubstantial JusticeReimbursement of CostsPretrial Conference StatementDecision After RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ
References
0
Case No. ADJ8008859
Regular
Nov 05, 2020

MADELINE CASACCA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS and REHABILITATION, CTF SOLEDAD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award. The Board found that the defendant failed to provide substantial evidence for apportionment of applicant's disability, as the QME's opinion lacked sufficient explanation of how non-industrial factors caused the disability. Additionally, the Board determined that the Labor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A) reduction in indemnity was inapplicable because the applicant had already returned to work in her regular position. Commissioner Lowe dissented, arguing that the QME's apportionment of 10% disability to non-industrial factors constituted substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdjudication NumberFindings and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationInjury AOE/COEPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Code section 4658(d)(3)(A)Fifteen Percent ReductionOrthopedic Qualified Medical ExaminerApportionment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 8,246 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