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. ADJ7445107
Regular
Oct 13, 2025

JILLIAN DIFUSCO vs. HANDS ON SPA, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE GROUP

The Appeals Board, en banc, granted reconsideration of a WCJ's decision regarding disclosure requirements for defendants. The WCJ had ruled that the defendant only needed to disclose the name of its insurance carrier as per WCAB Rule 10390. The Board determined that its prior en banc decisions, Coldiron I and II, are binding precedent and require defendants to disclose all entities liable for payment and any insurance policy provisions affecting liability. Consequently, the WCJ's Findings of Fact and Order were rescinded, and the matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with this comprehensive disclosure mandate.

En Banc DecisionWCAB Rule 10390Coldiron IColdiron IIDiscovery RequestInsurance Carrier DisclosureSelf-Insured RetentionLarge DeductibleEntity Liable for CompensationThird-Party Administrator
References
25
Case No. ADJ4274323, ADJ1601669
Significant
Oct 06, 2014

Jose Dubon vs. World Restoration, Inc., State Compensation Insurance Fund

This en banc decision holds that a utilization review (UR) decision is invalid and not subject to independent medical review (IMR) only if it is untimely. Timeliness disputes are resolved by the WCAB, while all other disputes about a UR decision must be resolved by IMR.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewTimelinessMedical NecessityLabor Code Section 4610Labor Code Section 4610.5Senate Bill 863En Banc DecisionAdministrative Director
References
37
Case No. ADJ4274323 (ANA 0387677), ADJ1601669 (ANA 0388466)
Significant
May 22, 2014

Jose Dubon vs. World Restoration, Inc., and State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a prior en banc decision to further study the legal and factual issues surrounding whether disputes over utilization review (UR) timeliness and procedural defects fall under the jurisdiction of the WCAB or the independent medical review (IMR) process.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewIndependent Medical ReviewProcedural DefectsMedical NecessitySB 863Labor Code Section 4610.5TimelinessInvalid URSubstantial Medical Evidence
References
3
Case No. 04-14-00558-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2019

Edna A. Martinez v. State Office of Risk Management

This dissenting opinion addresses the denial of an en banc reconsideration motion for a case involving Edna A. Martinez and the State Office of Risk Management (SORM). The central dispute revolves around whether Martinez's failure to obtain prior written authorization for working from home, as required by Texas Government Code sections 658.010 and 659.018, affects the compensability of her injury under the Texas Worker's Compensation Act. The dissent argues against the court's prior finding that the Government Code provisions control, contending that they do not conflict with nor supersede Labor Code section 401.011(12), which defines 'course and scope of employment' to include working from 'other locations.' Furthermore, the dissenting justice asserts that the Government Code statutes are more general, while the Labor Code provision is more specific to worker's compensation. The dissent also believes there is a disputed fact question regarding Martinez's authority to work from home, citing evidence from previous proceedings. For these reasons, the dissenting justice would grant the motion for rehearing en banc and withdraw the previous panel opinion.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationGovernment CodeLabor CodeSummary JudgmentEn Banc ReconsiderationDissenting OpinionTexas LawState Employee
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1994

S & L RESTAURANT CORP. v. Leal

This document is a concurring opinion by Justice Hardberger regarding the denial of an en banc rehearing. The case involves a settlement agreement between Steak and Ale (appellant/defendant) and Annie Leal (appellee/plaintiff). Steak and Ale claims the settlement was procured by fraud and seeks a new trial, arguing the trial court did not properly render judgment. Justice Hardberger argues that judgment was indeed rendered at the May 14, 1991 hearing, as 'magic words' are not required, and the court's approval of the settlement constituted rendition. He also emphasizes that the appellate court is not the proper forum for a factual determination of fraud, and the case should be remanded to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on Steak and Ale's motion for a new trial to determine if fraud occurred. He believes that certitude regarding fraud outweighs a small delay and an en banc rehearing is inappropriate due to its rarity and the lack of an initial evidentiary hearing at the trial court level.

Concurring OpinionEn Banc RehearingMotion for RehearingSettlement AgreementConsent JudgmentFraud AllegationsEvidentiary HearingRendition of JudgmentTrial Court RemandAppellate Procedure
References
27
Case No. 14-14-00097-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

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

This document is the appellant Vicki Ward's response to the appellees' motion for rehearing or, in the alternative, rehearing en banc. Ward agrees that the primary constitutional ground for her appeal concerning the declaratory judgment action was the improper dismissal of her free speech claim under the Texas Constitution. She contends that her claim for attorneys' fees, permitted under the Texas Declaratory Judgment Act, ensures her declaratory judgment action is not moot. Ward also argues that the appellees did not adequately address pertinent case law regarding her whistleblower claim and failed to provide any basis for en banc review. Consequently, Ward requests that the appellees' motion for rehearing be denied, with a minor concession for the Court to reconsider certain constitutional claims if deemed necessary.

Declaratory Judgment ActAttorneys' FeesMootness DoctrineFree Speech ClaimWhistleblower ClaimAppellate ProcedureMotion for RehearingEn Banc ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployment Law
References
14
Case No. 14-00-00173-CV; 14-00-00580-CV (Consolidated)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2002

Nabors Industries, Inc., Nabors Drilling USA, Inc., Nabors Loffland Drilling Co., Nabors Energy Services, Inc. v. Chesapeake Operating Inc. and Chesapeake Energy Corporation

This case consolidates two appeals arising from personal injury claims at a Louisiana drilling site, focusing on the enforceability of oilfield indemnity provisions. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, withdrew a previous opinion and reviewed whether Texas or Louisiana law should apply to these contract clauses. The majority applied Texas law, affirming one trial court's judgment and reversing and remanding another, citing principles of contractual freedom and the domicile of the parties. Dissenting opinions contended that Louisiana law should govern due to the location of the accidents and Louisiana's strong public policy, advocating for a geographical-based analysis to ensure predictability and prevent forum shopping.

Oilfield IndemnityChoice of LawConflict of LawsRestatement (Second) of Conflict of LawsTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeLouisiana Revised StatutesContractual FreedomEn Banc ReviewPersonal InjuryDrilling Contracts
References
51
Case No. ADJ425881 (MON 0349358) ADJ1664800 (MON 0330278)
Regular
Feb 23, 2009

Jerry Salmeron vs. COCA COLA ENTERPRISES

This case concerns an applicant's admitted industrial injuries to his low back, psyche, and hernias, and his subsequent permanent disability ratings. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address disputes regarding the proper application of the 2005 Schedule for Rating Permanent Disabilities, particularly concerning diminished future earning capacity (DFEC). The WCAB rescinded the prior awards and remanded the cases to the trial level to allow the judge and parties to apply recent en banc decisions clarifying how the DFEC and AMA Guides portions of the schedule can be rebutted. The decision emphasizes that rebuttal must be consistent with Labor Code section 4660 and specific en banc rulings on evidence and methodology.

WCABSalmeronCoca Cola EnterprisesDecision After ReconsiderationFindings and Awardpermanent disabilityrebutted2005 Schedulediminished future earning capacityDFEC
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2001

Cadle Co. v. Lobingier

This en banc review addresses three judgments: a 1996 contempt judgment, a trial court's arrearage judgment, and a 1998 contempt judgment. The court dismisses appeals of the 1996 and 1998 contempt judgments, ruling direct appeal is improper for contempt orders. It reverses the trial court's arrearage judgment, clarifying that civil contempt fines are payable to the court, not private litigants, and Lobingier lacked standing to recover it. However, the court renders judgment holding The Cadle Company, Daniel C. Cadle, and Citizens Against Corrupt Attorneys jointly and severally liable for a $461,000 civil contempt fine, payable to the court, for 922 days of non-compliance with prior turnover orders. A $5,000 attorney's fees award to Lobingier is also reversed.

Civil ContemptCriminal ContemptEn Banc ReviewTurnover OrdersCoercive FinesAppellate JurisdictionStandingCollateral AttackDirect AttackAttorney's Fees
References
59
Case No. 01-00-00846-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Harris County Emergency Services District 1 v. Robert E. Miller and the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

Harris County Emergency Services District #1 (HCESD) appealed a district court's dismissal of its petition for judicial review after the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) Appeals Panel ordered HCESD to pay benefits to injured paramedic Robert E. Miller. Miller was injured while working for HCESD, which failed to provide workers' compensation insurance. The district court dismissed HCESD's suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, citing HCESD's failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On en banc reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal, clarifying that the failure to exhaust administrative remedies did not eliminate subject-matter jurisdiction. However, the Court rendered judgment that HCESD take nothing, effectively denying HCESD's challenge to the TWCC decision on the merits.

Judicial ReviewSubject-Matter JurisdictionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesLabor CodeEn Banc ReconsiderationAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas CourtsState Political SubdivisionSelf-Insurer
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 4,776 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