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. ADJ2842535
Regular
May 27, 2011

JANE HUTZELL vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA at BERKELEY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration by applicant Jane Hutzell against the University of California at Berkeley. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report. The judge found that vocational experts' opinions did not adequately address the impact of medical apportionment or the specifics of part-time work availability on the overall industrial disability rating. Therefore, the judge's rating, based on established schedules, was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationVocational ExpertsLumbar Spine ConditionCumulative TraumaNon-Industrial FactorsObesityApportionmentBilateral Carpal Tunnel SyndromeBilateral Cubital Tunnel Syndrome
References
0
Case No. ADJ17068636
Regular
May 19, 2025

KATHLEEN ZEPEDA vs. CALIFORNIA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, CALIFORNIA RESTAURANT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION

Applicant Kathleen Zepeda claimed injury to her abdomen, back, and lower extremities while employed by California Baptist University. Lien claimant Medland Medical Group and defendant California Baptist University both sought reconsideration of a February 19, 2025 Findings and Award (F&A). The F&A entitled Medland Medical Group to payment for medical-legal costs related to an April 26, 2023 report but did not find an injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE). The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, granted the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, and affirmed the F&A with an amendment to explicitly state that the lien claimant failed to meet its burden of establishing injury AOE/COE.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardMedical-Legal ReportPrimary Treating PhysicianInjury AOE/COESubstantial EvidenceContested ClaimMedical Treatment Costs
References
5
Case No. 09-24-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2026

Universal Protection Service, LP D/B/A Allied Universal Security and Universal Protection Service GP, Inc. v. the Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC

Universal Protection Services, LP d/b/a Allied Universal Security (Allied) and The Woodlands Mall Associates, LLC (TWM) were parties to a Security Agreement. A patron, Penny Prater, sued both Allied and TWM, along with other entities, for negligence after a robbery in the mall parking lot, alleging failures in security services and training. Allied and TWM filed competing motions for summary judgment regarding Allied's contractual duty to defend TWM, which Allied had refused. The trial court granted summary judgment for TWM, finding that Allied had a duty to defend TWM based on the Agreement's terms and Illinois law. Allied appealed this decision, arguing the contract's indemnification provision did not require it to defend TWM for TWM's own alleged negligence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the contractual provision clearly required Allied to defend TWM when the alleged acts of negligence or failures resulted from its provision of security services.

Contract InterpretationDuty to DefendIndemnification AgreementSecurity ServicesNegligence ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois Contract LawTexas Civil ProcedureBreach of Contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palmer v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University

The claimant, an orthopedic hand surgeon, developed cervical radiculopathy and degenerative disc disease due to the physical strain of performing hand surgery and filed for workers' compensation benefits. His claim was controverted by the State University of New York Upstate Medical University and its carrier, as well as the Research Foundation of New York and its carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant was a dual employee of both the University and the Foundation and that his condition constituted a causally related occupational disease. The University and its carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support both the dual employment status and the existence of a recognizable link between the claimant's condition and the distinctive features of his occupation.

Occupational DiseaseCervical RadiculopathyDegenerative Disc DiseaseDual EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHand Surgery StrainMedical OpinionAppellate ReviewCausationEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. 14-14-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2015

Vicki Ward v. Lamar University, Texas State University System and James Simmons

Vicki Ward sued Lamar University and the Texas State University System for whistleblower retaliation and constitutional violations after reporting suspicious financial transactions. Ward alleged adverse personnel actions, including reduced responsibilities and supervision, following the leak of her report. The trial court dismissed her claims based on a plea to the jurisdiction and sua sponte. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of whistleblower claims against the Texas State University System but reversed the dismissal against Lamar University, citing factual disputes regarding adverse action and grievance initiation. Furthermore, the court largely reversed the sua sponte dismissal of Ward's constitutional claims against both entities, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionAdverse Personnel ActionTexas ConstitutionFree SpeechDue ProcessEqual ProtectionGovernmental ImmunityPublic Employee
References
44
Case No. ADJ10802982
Regular
Feb 28, 2020

John Klimkiewicz vs. Regents of the University of California

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the administrative law judge's finding that the applicant was employed by "University of California, Irvine." The Board judicially noticed that the Regents of the University of California is the sole legal employer, encompassing all its campuses, including UC Irvine. Consequently, the applicant's civil settlement with the Regents was not with a "third party," and the defendant's petition for a third-party credit was denied. The Board affirmed the finding of no industrial injury to the chest, arms, or sleep disorder.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationThird Party CreditLabor Code section 3861Labor Code section 3856Regents of the University of CaliforniaUniversity of California IrvineJudicial NoticePermissibly Self-InsuredIndustrial Injury
References
14
Case No. ADJ7673518
Regular
Jun 18, 2015

ANA DE AYALA vs. AO-THE UNIVERSITY CORPORATION/CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE

The defendant, AO-The University Corporation/California State University Northridge, sought reconsideration of a prior decision finding the applicant sustained an industrial neck injury on January 24, 2011. Defendant argued the applicant's alleged dishonesty under oath invalidated the injury report. However, the Board previously found sufficient additional evidence supported the industrial injury finding, even considering credibility issues. The Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, reaffirming its prior decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationOpinion and Order Granting Petition for ReconsiderationDecision After Reconsiderationindustrial injuryneck injurylied under oathcredibilitysufficient additional evidenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAO-The University Corporation
References
0
Case No. E2012-02664-COA-R9-CV-FILED-JANUARY 16, 2014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2014

Lisa Womble v. University Health System, Inc. d/b/a University of Tennessee Regional Medical Center

This case originated from an employment action filed by Lisa Womble, a nurse, after her termination from the University of Tennessee Regional Medical Center, which was operated by University Health System, Inc. (UHS), a private nonprofit corporation. Womble, classified as a 'leased' employee, retained certain university benefits. The trial court sua sponte ruled Tennessee Code Annotated section 49-9-112(a), the statute governing leased employees, unconstitutional, prompting an interlocutory appeal. The appellate court examined whether the statute constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority or an unconstitutional lending of the State's credit. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's determination, affirming the constitutionality of the statute and remanding the case for further proceedings.

employment lawconstitutional lawstate employeesleased employeeslegislative delegationlending of state creditpublic purposedue processadministrative procedureswrongful termination
References
26
Case No. 03-14-00801-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2015

the University of Texas System and the University of Texas at Dallas v. Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas And Marilyn Cameron

The University of Texas System and The University of Texas at Dallas (Appellants) are appealing a trial court's decision that granted summary judgment to Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas, and intervenor Marilyn Cameron. The core issue revolves around an open records request for the names of human research subjects involved in a national security/terrorism study, which the University argued should remain confidential under Texas Government Code § 552.101 due to privacy concerns and academic freedom. The trial court's ruling mandated the disclosure of this information. Appellants contend that the Attorney General's motion for summary judgment lacked evidentiary support for negating confidentiality and that a more robust privacy analysis, encompassing the First Amendment right to academic freedom, is warranted. The case seeks a reversal of the summary judgment and a remand for a full trial on the merits with a broadened legal framework for privacy.

Academic FreedomConfidentiality of Research SubjectsPublic Information ActOpen Records RequestSummary JudgmentCommon-Law PrivacyConstitutional PrivacyHuman Research SubjectsFreedom of the PressFirst Amendment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2015

Ward v. Lamar University

Vicki Ward sued Lamar University and the Texas State University System under the Texas Whistleblower Act and for constitutional violations, alleging retaliation after reporting suspicious financial transactions. The trial court dismissed her claims. On appeal, the court found fact issues regarding whether Ward initiated a grievance and suffered materially adverse actions from Lamar University, reversing the dismissal of whistleblower and free speech retaliation claims against Lamar. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the Texas State University System due to lack of evidence of adverse action and unfulfilled threats not constituting actionable decisions. The case is remanded for further proceedings concerning Lamar University.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationFree SpeechDeclaratory Judgment ActTexas ConstitutionAdverse Personnel ActionSovereign ImmunityGrievance ProcedurePlea to the JurisdictionPublic Employee
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 3,072 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