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. ADJ9447222
Regular
Jun 23, 2015

Gloria Gutierrez vs. Moonlight Companies, Zenith Insurance Company

The Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition to disqualify the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The applicant alleged the WCJ formed an unqualified opinion on the merits of the case. While the WCJ initially dismissed the claim based on a misunderstanding of the law, he later rescinded the dismissal and scheduled further proceedings. The Board found no evidence the WCJ formed an unqualified opinion and believes he can render a fair hearing.

Petition for disqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJunqualified opinionmerits of actionLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination defensereporting of injuriesCode of Civil Procedure section 641(f)Order Rescinding Dismissal
References
0
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 638 ... Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n

This opinion addresses backpay claims in an employment discrimination case spanning over two decades. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) represents black and Hispanic workers against Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and its Joint Apprenticeship Committee, alleging discriminatory admission practices. The court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the backpay claims, rejecting arguments regarding settlement, prosecutorial delay, inadequate discovery, and notice-of-claim deadlines. It also found defendants failed to prove claimants were unqualified or failed to mitigate damages by joining the armed forces or attending school. Furthermore, the court clarified prejudgment interest rates to be applied and affirmed the administrator's decision regarding claimant Charles Moss, directing further proceedings on defendants' financial capacity and revised backpay calculations.

Employment DiscriminationBackpay ClaimsTitle VIICivil Rights ActLabor Union DiscriminationApprenticeship ProgramsRacial DiscriminationHispanic DiscriminationMitigation of DamagesPrejudgment Interest
References
32
Case No. ADJ7207861
Regular
May 06, 2011

STEVE TORDINI vs. JAMES DIEDRICH, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS INS. CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's contention that the WCJ erred in relying on the treating physician's opinion over the PQME's regarding permanent disability and apportionment. The Board found the treating physician's opinion unsubstantiated, as it included unqualified legal conclusions and improperly utilized AMA Guides criteria for apportionment. Consequently, the WCAB rescinded the prior award and returned the case for a new decision, directing the WCJ to base findings on the PQME's report. A dissenting opinion argued that both medical opinions were flawed and recommended further medical development.

PQMEWCJWPIapportionmentLabor Code sections 46634664Almaraz IIAMA GuidesDRE Lumbar Category IVdisc protrusion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chair King, Inc. v. GTE Mobilnet of Houston, Inc.

This opinion addresses a complex case challenging a trial court's summary judgment on claims brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and common-law claims, stemming from unsolicited fax advertisements. The court overrules rehearing motions, withdraws a previous opinion, and issues this new opinion. It affirms the trial court's judgment dismissing all common-law claims and all TCPA claims against Chick-Fil-A, Inc., due to the application of Texas's two-year statute of limitations. However, the court reverses the summary judgment for GTE Mobilnet of Houston, Inc. regarding the TCPA claims of specific appellants (Jerome Kosoy, M.D., Beautique, Inc., Discovery Services of Texas, Inc., and Jeffrey K. Musker, D.C.), remanding these for further proceedings. The court clarifies several key interpretations of the TCPA, rejecting the 'opt-in' approach for private damage claims in state courts, confirming the TCPA's application to intrastate faxes, and upholding its constitutionality against Commerce Clause, Due Process, First Amendment, and Equal Protection challenges.

Telephone Consumer Protection ActUnsolicited AdvertisementsFax MarketingStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewCommerce Clause ChallengeFirst Amendment RightsCommercial Speech RegulationDue Process ChallengeEqual Protection Challenge
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. Smith

Chief Justice Brister's dissenting opinion, including a concurring appendix, vigorously opposes the court's decision to withdraw its previously issued opinions. He argues that withdrawing the opinions disserves the public interest and perpetuates the flawed reasoning of Tamez v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, which he believes incorrectly restricts the concept of insurable interest. Brister asserts that the Texas Legislature intended a liberal interpretation of insurable interests, not a rigid adherence to outdated common law definitions from 1942. He highlights that employers face significant pecuniary losses from employee deaths, even for "service-level" employees, and should therefore possess an insurable interest, urging the court to reconsider its approach in light of modern insurance practices and legislative intent.

Insurable InterestWorkers' CompensationMass TortStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionCommon LawInsurance CodePecuniary BenefitEmployer LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
25
Case No. ADJ3447287 (SBR 0263874) ADJ3565604 (ANA 0306676) ADJ3955433 (ANA 0306675)
Regular
Dec 09, 2016

PATSY HENDRY vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITAL, PERMISSIBLY SELF INSURED

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied a petition to disqualify a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCAB found that the alleged expressions of opinion by the WCJ did not demonstrate bias or an unqualified opinion as to the merits of the case, but rather reflected rulings based on evidence and law. The board also clarified that erroneous rulings do not constitute grounds for disqualification. Furthermore, the WCAB concluded that the petition, while not subject to strict timeliness rules due to the timing of the alleged events, was still ultimately denied on its merits.

Petition for DisqualificationWCJCode of Civil Procedure section 641formed or expressed an unqualified opinionexistence of a state of mindenmity against or bias towardTaylor v. Industrial Acc. Com.Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com.Kreling v. Superior CourtMcEwen v. Occidental Life Ins. Co.
References
7
Case No. ADJ8737025 ADJ9415548
Regular
Jan 21, 2020

HERIBERTO GUILLEN vs. INFINITY STAFFING; AGGCAP INSURANCE, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a defendant's petition to disqualify a Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) due to her testimony as a witness in a separate criminal proceeding concerning the applicant. The defendant argued the WCJ was a material witness, expressed an opinion on the merits, or had a doubtful capacity for impartiality. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding her testimony, given under subpoena, did not demonstrate bias nor constituted an unqualified opinion on the case's merits, as she merely explained legal principles. One Commissioner dissented, believing the WCJ's testimony on the impact of the applicant's fraud conviction created an appearance of bias and prejudged the merits of a pending dismissal petition.

Petition for disqualificationWCJ testimonyInsurance Code section 1871.4Penal Code section 118Code of Civil Procedure section 641Rule 9721.12material witnessunqualified opinionappearance of biasnolo contendere
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jesse v. Savings Products

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier from a Chancellor's award of worker's compensation benefits to an employee who developed a mental disability after being raped at her workplace. The defendants argued the injury did not arise out of employment and that the permanence of the disability was not competently proven. The Court applied the "street risk" doctrine, concluding the rape was a hazard of employment due to the plaintiff's visible identification with her work and exposure to the public. While affirming compensability, the Court remanded the case for a physician's opinion on the duration of the plaintiff's disability, as current expert psychological opinions were deemed insufficient for proving permanence.

Post-traumatic Stress SyndromeWorkplace RapeMental Disability BenefitsWorker's Compensation AppealStreet Risk DoctrineCompensability of AssaultsEmployment-Related InjuryMedical Opinion SufficiencyPermanence of DisabilityRemand for Expert Testimony
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Viscaino v. State

Appellant Elizabeth Viscaino was convicted of theft for unlawfully appropriating between $500 and $1,500 from the Presidio County tax office. She appealed, raising challenges regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, improper opinion testimony, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court found sufficient evidence to support the theft conviction and determined that although Ranger Vajdos's opinion on Appellant's guilt was improperly admitted, it constituted harmless error given other evidence presented. Furthermore, the court concluded that the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were not adequately supported by the record on appeal. Consequently, all issues raised by the Appellant were overruled, and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Theft ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceProsecutorial MisconductImproper Opinion TestimonyIneffective Assistance of CounselTexas Penal CodeAppellate ReviewCriminal LawDue ProcessHarmless Error
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2016

United States v. Nesbeth

Chevelle Nesbeth was convicted by a jury for importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute. Senior District Judge Block rendered a non-incarceratory sentence of one-year probation, with special conditions including six months' home confinement and 100 hours of community service. The judge wrote this opinion to emphasize the importance of considering the numerous statutory and regulatory collateral consequences facing Nesbeth as a convicted felon, such as restrictions on employment, housing, and voting. These consequences were extensively balanced against 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors to determine a just punishment. The opinion advocates for legal counsel and the Probation Department to proactively address collateral consequences in all future pre-sentence reports and sentencing proceedings.

Collateral ConsequencesSentencing ReformCriminal JusticeProbationary SentenceDrug Trafficking OffensesFelony ConvictionJudicial DiscretionFederal Sentencing GuidelinesRehabilitationRecidivism
References
55
Showing 1-10 of 23,199 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