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. ADJ9456228 (MF), ADJ9341963
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine Toll Global Forwarding's employer status. While the ALJ found Toll Global was not a special employer, the Board reversed this, finding Toll Global was indeed the special employer. This determination was based on Toll Global's direct supervision and instruction of the applicant. The staffing agencies, Select Staffing and Tri-State Staffing, were designated as the general employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerToll Global ForwardingSelect StaffingTri-State StaffingACE American InsuranceJoint Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. 01-05-00668-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2006

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case addresses whether Harris County or Southwestern Bell Telephone (SBC) is responsible for utility relocation costs necessitated by the construction of the Westpark Tollway. SBC sought reimbursement under Transportation Code section 251.102 and for inverse condemnation under the Texas Constitution. The Court of Appeals concluded that while SBC is an 'eligible utility facility,' section 251.102 does not waive Harris County's governmental immunity from suit. Furthermore, the court determined that SBC does not possess a vested property interest in the public right-of-way sufficient to support an inverse condemnation claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of SBC and rendered judgment for Harris County.

Utility Relocation CostsGovernmental ImmunityInverse CondemnationTexas Transportation CodeTexas Utilities CodePublic Right-of-WaySummary JudgmentAppellate JurisdictionPrejudgment InterestConstitutional Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

Plaintiffs Angus Partners LLC d/b/a Angus Energy and White Crane Martial Arts, Inc. brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), and their officials, alleging that bridge and tunnel tolls violated the constitutionally-protected right to travel and the dormant Commerce Clause, as well as New York common law claims for unjust enrichment and money had and received. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiffs cross-moved. The court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs' cross-motion. The court found no discrimination against interstate commerce, noting that toll discounts were available to all E-ZPass users regardless of residency. It also concluded that the tolls were based on a fair approximation of use and were not excessive, as the MTA and TBTA operate an integrated transportation system providing substantial benefits to toll-payers, such as reduced traffic congestion and economic advantages. Consequently, the state law claims, being premised on unconstitutional or unlawful tolls, were also dismissed.

Right to TravelDormant Commerce ClauseTollsTransportation AuthoritySummary JudgmentNew York LawUnjust EnrichmentMoney Had and ReceivedIntegrated Transportation SystemPublic Benefit Corporation
References
32
Case No. No. 21-0797
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2023

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The Supreme Court of Texas reversed a court of appeals' judgment concerning equitable tolling in a defective design and development lawsuit. Plaintiff El Pistolón II, Ltd. initially sued Levinson Alcoser Associates, L.P. and Levinson Associates, Inc. for negligence and breach of contract, but the suit was dismissed for a deficient certificate of merit. El Pistolón refiled, arguing that the limitations period should have been tolled during the appeal of the earlier suit. The Court clarified that equitable tolling, including "Hughes tolling" or a broader "legal impediment rule," is limited in scope and does not apply when an earlier suit is dismissed and refiled. As a result, El Pistolón's claims were deemed time-barred, and the trial court's summary judgment was reinstated.

Equitable TollingStatute of LimitationsCertificate of MeritCivil Practice and Remedies CodeDefective PleadingLegal PrecedentAppellate ReviewSummary JudgmentTexas LawConstruction Defects
References
46
Case No. 14-02-00582-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2003

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

Patrick Olajide Akinwamide filed a lawsuit after an unsuccessful workers' compensation claim against his employer and two insurance companies, alleging fraud, negligence, and fraudulent concealment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees based on limitations, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Akinwamide appealed, asserting the trial court improperly granted summary judgment by failing to negate his equitable tolling defense to limitations. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Akinwamide failed to provide summary judgment proof for his tolling claims and that his lawsuit was untimely even if tolling applied. Thus, the appellees successfully established their limitations defense.

Summary judgmentLimitations periodRes judicataCollateral estoppelEquitable tollingFraudulent concealmentNegligenceWorkers' compensation claimAppellate reviewAffirmative defense
References
17
Case No. 93 CV 4888 (ADS)
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The plaintiff, Mary Ann Wenzel, a former Nassau County Police Officer, sued the Nassau County Police Department under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging civil rights violations and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants sought dismissal, claiming the statute of limitations had expired. Wenzel argued for tolling the statute due to insanity under CPLR § 208. Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky recommended against tolling, finding Wenzel capable of protecting her legal rights. District Judge Spatt adopted this recommendation, ruling that Wenzel did not meet the "insanity" criteria for tolling the statute of limitations. Consequently, the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Civil RightsStatute of LimitationsTolling ProvisionInsanity Defense42 U.S.C. Section 1983CPLR Section 208Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicial ReviewMotion to DismissDepression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Claimant Cerami filed a workers’ compensation claim in September 1980 for a mental breakdown in 1967, which was initially deemed time-barred under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28. Cerami sought to invoke the mental incompetence toll of section 115. The Workers’ Compensation Board found Cerami competent in 1967 and denied the toll, but the Appellate Division reversed, adopting a broader definition of mental incompetence. This court rejected the Appellate Division's definition, aligning with the CPLR 208 insanity toll requiring an overall inability to function in society to protect legal rights. The court found that the Board applied the correct legal standard and its determination was supported by substantial evidence, thus reversing the Appellate Division's order and reinstating the Board’s original decision.

workers' compensationmental incompetencestatute of limitationstolling provisionparanoid schizophreniaAppellate Division reversalWorkers' Compensation Board decisionsubstantial evidencelegal rightsCPLR 208
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case addresses two certified questions from the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee concerning the application of Tennessee's statute of limitations. The primary issue is whether the legal disability of "unsound mind" removes the tolling of the statute of limitations upon the appointment of a legal guardian. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the legal disability statute, Tenn.Code Ann. § 28-1-106, continues to toll the statute of limitations for individuals of unsound mind as long as the disability persists, regardless of a legal guardian's appointment. The court further clarified that the "discovery rule" is inapplicable to plaintiffs of unsound mind during the period of their disability. This decision emphasizes that the cause of action remains personal to the plaintiff, and the statute of limitations runs or is tolled based on the plaintiff's individual status.

Legal disabilityStatute of limitationsUnsound mindGuardianshipTolling statuteCertified questionsTort claimsProducts liabilityPersonal injury lawBrain injury
References
32
Case No. M2013-01465-SC-R11-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Richard Moreno sued the City of Clarksville after an accident caused by a falling tree, seeking to toll the statute of limitations under Tennessee Code Annotated § 20-1-119 (comparative fault) and § 9-8-402(b) (Claims Commission Act tolling). The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the 90-day window was not triggered. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the initial written notice of claim constituted an "original complaint." The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, concluding that the written notice is not an "original complaint" under § 20-1-119 and that § 9-8-402(b) does not apply to toll the statute of limitations for claims against municipalities under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). Consequently, Moreno's action against the City of Clarksville was deemed time-barred.

Statute of LimitationsComparative FaultGovernmental Tort Liability ActClaims Commission ActMunicipal LiabilityTolling ProvisionPleadingsOriginal ComplaintNotice of ClaimStatutory Interpretation
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 367 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