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. NO. 03-05-00031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2005

Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Successor in Interest to the Former Texas Rehabilitation Commission v. Richard Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager at the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported alleged illegal practices to the State Auditor’s Office (SAO). Howard claimed his superiors retaliated against him by rating him below standard on performance appraisals and denying promotions and merit pay increases. He sued under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages, costs, and attorney's fees. The Department appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding Howard's good faith report, appropriate authority, causation, and damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Howard made a good faith report to an appropriate authority and that his report caused the adverse actions.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeState Auditor’s OfficePerformance AppraisalMerit PayPromotion DenialDamagesCausationGood Faith Report
References
20
Case No. ADJ8772254
Regular
Jul 20, 2017

Lorenzo Hernandez vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lorenzo Hernandez's petition for reconsideration, upholding the original award of 24% permanent disability for a right shoulder injury. The applicant argued that a vocational expert's report should have rebutted the scheduled disability rating, but the Board found this report insufficient. Relying on *Ogilvie* and *Dahl*, the Board determined that an applicant's amenability to vocational rehabilitation precludes using vocational expert testimony to challenge a scheduled rating based on lost earning capacity. Therefore, the vocational expert's opinion was deemed not substantial evidence to overcome the QME's scheduled rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPermanent DisabilityVocational ExpertQualified Medical EvaluatorScheduled RatingReconsiderationLabor Code §4660.1AMA Guides 5th EditionAmenability to Vocational RehabilitationDiminished Future Earning Capacity
References
3
Case No. ADJ9025732
Regular
Apr 07, 2023

ALBERT MATA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding of 100% permanent total disability for the applicant, Albert Mata. The defendant argued that the applicant's vocational counselor's reports and medical reports did not constitute substantial evidence for total disability. However, the Board affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision, finding the vocational expert's opinions were substantial evidence, not based on speculation, and correctly applied California's 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule for psychiatric impairments. Therefore, the Board concluded the applicant was precluded from vocational rehabilitation and participating in the labor force.

Permanent total disabilityPsychiatric injuryVocational Rehabilitation CounselorAmerican Medical Association GuidesGlobal Assessment of FunctioningPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleSubstantial evidencePetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeAgreed Medical Examiner
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Successor in Interest to the Former Texas Rehabilitation Commission v. Richard Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager with the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported several alleged legal violations by his employer to the State Auditor’s Office. Howard subsequently experienced retaliation, including denial of promotions and merit pay increases, which he attributed to his whistleblowing activities. He successfully sued the department under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages. The Department appealed the verdict, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on multiple grounds, including good faith reporting, appropriate authority, causation, and damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the evidence was legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's findings.

Whistleblower ActPublic Employee RetaliationPerformance EvaluationEmployment DiscriminationState Auditor's OfficeGood Faith ReportCausal LinkEconomic DamagesAppellate ReviewJury Verdict
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 1995

In re Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc.

Jordan Rehabilitation Service, Inc., providing medical and vocational rehabilitative services, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board assessed additional unemployment insurance contributions, finding that specialists hired by Jordan were employees, not independent contractors, between 1989 and 1991. The court reviewed whether there was substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion of an employer-employee relationship. Key factors included Jordan's control over recruitment, screening, compensation, billing, and contractual restrictions on specialists. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Jordan exercised sufficient overall control to establish an employer-employee relationship and thus was liable for the contributions.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorRehabilitation ServicesLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceControl TestJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeDepartment of Labor
References
8
Case No. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. 03-05-00031-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2005

DEPT. OF ASSISTIVE & REHAB. SERV. v. Howard

Richard Howard, a unit manager at the Texas Department of Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, reported alleged illegal practices by his employer to the State Auditor's Office. He claimed retaliation after his superiors learned of his report, leading to negative performance appraisals and denied promotions and merit pay increases despite an exemplary 24-year work record. Howard sued the Department under the Whistleblower Act, and a jury awarded him damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The Department appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on multiple grounds, including the report's good faith, the appropriateness of the authority, and causation. The Court of Appeals found the evidence legally and factually sufficient to support the jury's verdict, affirming the trial court's judgment.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationPublic EmployeeState Auditor's OfficePerformance AppraisalMerit PayPromotion DenialCausationGood Faith ReportEmployment Law
References
20
Case No. ADJ8189392
Regular
Jan 19, 2015

KATHRYN JOHNSON vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an award of permanent total disability. The defendant argued the vocational rehabilitation expert's report lacked substantial evidence and failed to apportion the injury. The Board found the vocational expert's opinion that the applicant was not amenable to vocational rehabilitation and had a complete loss of earning capacity was supported by medical evidence. This analysis was unaffected by the *Dahl* decision, leading to the denial of the petition.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardNotice of IntentionVocational Rehabilitation ExpertSubstantial EvidenceApportionmentPermanent Total DisabilityLoss of Earnings CapacityDahl holdingContra Costa County v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
2
Case No. ADJ8561235
Regular
Dec 12, 2019

Howard Stallings vs. Newhall School District

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision that the applicant failed to provide substantial vocational evidence to rebut the scheduled permanent disability rating. The applicant did not sufficiently demonstrate that their future earning capacity was less than what the schedule anticipated, specifically regarding vocational rehabilitation. The WCJ's report, adopted by the Board, found a lack of evidence proving the applicant's unsuitability for vocational rehabilitation stemming from the industrial injury.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationScheduled RatingVocational EvidenceFuture Earning CapacityOgilvieContra Costa County DahlLe BoeufAmenability to RehabilitationComplex Regional Pain Syndrome
References
3
Case No. ADJ3677747 (ANA 0406009) ADJ6794905
Regular
Jul 17, 2017

GREGORY FRITZ vs. SERVICE FIRST LIGHTING AND ELECTRIC, CASTLEPOINT NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision rescinds a prior award of total permanent disability due to insufficient evidence on the applicant's amenability to vocational rehabilitation. While vocational experts opined the applicant couldn't compete in the labor market, their reports did not adequately address rehabilitation potential. The case is remanded to the trial level for further development of the record on rehabilitation and a new decision regarding permanent disability, either by rebutting the scheduled rating or proving total disability under Labor Code section 4662(b).

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryTotal Permanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4662ReconsiderationVocational ExpertsAmenability to RehabilitationPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleApportionmentQualified Medical Evaluator
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,789 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