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. 01-17-00626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton and Anis Hussain v. City of Sugarland, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley and Allen Bogard

The appellants, Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton, and Anis Hussain, filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a Supplemental Reply Appeal Brief in the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. They seek permission to respond to a Supplemental Appeal Brief filed by the appellees, City of Sugar Land, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley, and Allen Bogard. The appellants argue that they are entitled to the last brief and that filing the supplemental brief would not interfere with the appeal's progress. They also state that the supplemental brief addresses a serious issue of subject matter jurisdiction concerning Article V, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. Counsel for the appellees, George A. Staples, confirmed that the appellees do not oppose this motion.

Appellate ProcedureMotion PracticeSupplemental BriefSubject Matter JurisdictionTexas ConstitutionArticle V Section 19Red Light Camera LawsExhaustion of RemediesSeparation of PowersUltra Vires Claim
References
12
Case No. 01-14-00515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2015

Kosoco, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County

The Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (METRO) filed this supplemental brief in response to Kosoco, Inc.'s reply brief. METRO argues that Kosoco's contention regarding material and substantial impairment of access during construction was waived, as it was not raised in their initial brief and lacked sufficient legal or evidentiary support. METRO asserts that any inconveniences during construction were normal and did not constitute a material and substantial impairment of access, nor is a decrease in business profitability relevant to a takings claim. The brief cites several Texas cases and rules of appellate procedure to support its arguments. METRO requests that the Court of Appeals affirm the trial court's order dismissing Kosoco's takings claim.

Appellate BriefWaiver of ArgumentTakings ClaimImpairment of AccessConstruction ImpactsEvidentiary SupportLegal PrecedentSummary JudgmentTrial Court OrderAffirmation
References
16
Case No. 1099
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. Stature Electric, Inc.

The court ruled on a motion to strike the supplemental appendix and specific sections of the brief submitted by respondent David W. Howard. The motion was granted to the extent that the material in the brief referencing the supplemental appendix is deemed stricken. However, the motion to strike was otherwise denied.

Motion to strikeSupplemental appendixBriefCourt procedureProcedural ruling
References
0
Case No. ADJ8180232
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

HUBERT OLIVER vs. PHILADELPHIA EAGLES, ACE/ESIS, INDIANAPOLIS COLTS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, HOUSTON OILERS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for HOME INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a judge's finding of no California jurisdiction over a professional football player's injury claim. The Board will consider whether the applicant was hired in California and if playing two games here creates sufficient connection for jurisdiction under the *Johnson* decision. The applicant will be allowed to file a supplemental brief referencing trial transcripts, and all parties will have an opportunity to brief the Board's intention to rule on the sufficiency of California's interest in adjudicating the claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia jurisdictionindustrial injuryprofessional football playeremployment contractssubject matter jurisdictionsupplemental briefingcumulative traumaFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)due process
References
6
Case No. ADJ2210692 (SDO 0348182)
Regular
Jul 16, 2012

MILTON GUZMAN vs. SELECT ELECTRIC, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior award finding Milton Guzman sustained an industrial psychological injury. The defendant, Zurich North America, argued the applicant did not meet the "sudden and extraordinary employment condition" requirement of Labor Code section 3208.3. The Board will allow supplemental briefing on whether the applicant met the six-month employment duration requirement for psychiatric claims, as this issue was not fully decided by the WCJ. The decision will address this specific issue before issuing a final ruling.

Labor Code section 3208.3psychiatric injurysudden and extraordinary employment conditionsix month employment requirementindustrial injuryFindings and AwardPetition for Reconsiderationsupplemental briefingWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
3
Case No. ADJ5761209
Regular
Sep 20, 2010

RICHARD PADGETT vs. AON CORPORATION, CAMBRIDGE/XCHANGING

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant Aon Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an administrative law judge's findings. This decision was made to allow for a more thorough review of the case's factual and legal issues. Additionally, the WCAB granted the defendant's request to file a supplemental brief within 15 days. All future correspondence regarding this case should be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

ADJ5761209Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactSupplemental BriefAppeals Board Rule 10848Decision After ReconsiderationOffice of the Commissioners
References
0
Case No. 12-14-00220-CV
Regular Panel Decision

East Texas Medical Center Gilmer v. Birder Porter

The Twelfth Court of Appeals ordered East Texas Medical Center Gilmer (ETMCG) to submit a supplemental brief on whether Birder Porter's claim is a 'health care liability claim' (HCLC) under Texas law. ETMCG argues that the appellee's slip-and-fall incident in its emergency room constitutes an HCLC, asserting that the facility is subject to strict cleanliness and maintenance standards directly related to health care and patient safety. ETMCG cites various federal and state laws and regulations, including the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 74, to support its argument. The appellant contends that even if the Ross v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hospital factors apply, the claim still qualifies as an HCLC due to the incident's location and connection to healthcare duties. ETMCG seeks reversal of the trial court's denial of its motion to dismiss and dismissal of the appellee's claims with prejudice.

AppealHealth Care Liability ClaimPremises LiabilityHospital NegligenceEmergency Room SafetyInfection ControlTexas LawStatutory InterpretationPatient SafetyRegulatory Compliance
References
45
Case No. 15-24-00104-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

In Re Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. the State of Texas

Defendant-Relator Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC submits a Notice of Supplemental Authority to the Fifteenth Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. This notice draws the court's attention to a brief filed by the State of Texas on November 20, 2024, in the *In re Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.* case. The State's brief supports the constitutionality of qui tam provisions in the Texas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention Act (THFPA), which deputize private whistleblowers to pursue fraud claims on behalf of the State. Sanofi-Aventis highlights the State's argument that the THFPA preserves the Attorney General's authority and that such cases are effectively brought by and for the State, contending this is relevant to the Court's jurisdiction in the present qui tam action.

Qui TamTexas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention ActMedicaid FraudWhistleblowerAssignee StandingConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersMandamusAppellate ProcedureOriginal Proceeding
References
0
Case No. 04-13-00419-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2014

Texas Dept. of Insurance, Worker's Comp Division v. Roel De Los Santos

This order, issued by the Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, on January 30, 2014, addresses a procedural matter in the case of Texas Dept. of Insurance, Worker's Comp Division v. Roel De Los Santos. The appeal originated from the 229th Judicial District Court in Duval County. The Appellant had filed a response to the Appellee's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief, and subsequently requested to file a supplemental brief themselves. The Court noted the Appellant's response and granted their request to file a supplemental brief, setting a due date of February 10, 2014. Justice Rebeca C. Martinez signed the order.

Texas Court of AppealsSupplemental BriefMotion GrantedAppellate ProcedureWorker's Compensation DivisionDuval CountyJudicial OrderCase ManagementProcedural Ruling
References
0
Case No. ADJ9355637
Regular
Apr 21, 2017

JESUS TORRES vs. GREENBRAE MANAGEMENT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's request to file supplemental briefing regarding his psychiatric injury. The applicant seeks reconsideration of an award that excluded permanent disability from his psychiatric injury, arguing it was a direct result of his physical injury, not a consequence, and that his case qualifies as a "catastrophic injury" or involved a violent act. The Board is allowing the defendant ten days to respond to this new argument, which was not previously addressed at trial. This procedural step aims to ensure due process and full consideration of the applicant's claims.

AOE/COEPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpermanent disabilitycatastrophic injuryLabor Code section 4660.1psychiatric injuryMilpitas Unified School Dist. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Almaraz-Guzman)supplemental briefingviolent act
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,514 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