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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nita Kissel Fanning v. Whitney Ely Fanning

Nita Fanning appealed a court order reducing her former husband, Whitney Fanning's, child-support payments. The trial court had found a reduction in Whitney Fanning's net resources. However, Nita Fanning was improperly denied discovery of essential financial documents, which prevented her from adequately challenging Whitney Fanning's claims regarding his income and net resources. The appellate court ruled that the denial of discovery was a material error that deprived Nita Fanning of her rights and the trial court of sufficient evidence. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded for a new trial.

Child Support ModificationDiscovery SanctionsFinancial DisclosureNet Resources CalculationSelf-Employment IncomeAppellate ProcedureTexas Family CodeAbuse of DiscretionRemandEvidence Admissibility
References
2
Case No. 2017-08-1357
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2019

Jones, Tauris v. Greenheck Fan Corp.

Tauris Jones requested additional medical benefits for a back injury, which Greenheck Fan Corporation denied. The Court considered this claim at an Expedited Hearing, where Mr. Jones failed to present sufficient evidence to likely prevail on the merits. Medical opinions, particularly from Dr. Schroerlucke and Dr. Murrell, became speculative regarding causation due to inconsistencies in Mr. Jones's reported medical history. Furthermore, Greenheck challenged Mr. Jones's credibility, presenting evidence of prior back pain and an alleged false work release. The Court found Mr. Jones's testimony hesitant and defensive, while employer witnesses were credible, leading to the denial of medical benefits.

Medical Benefits DenialExpedited HearingBack InjuryHerniated DiskCausation DisputeMedical Evidence ReviewCredibility AssessmentInconsistent Medical HistoryWitness TestimonyIndependent Medical Evaluation
References
5
Case No. ADJ11098848
Regular
Nov 02, 2019

WENYUAN FAN vs. YAYA LOVE, INC., dba OH BABY SUSHI, TECHNOLOGY INSURANCE COMPANY, AMTRUST, INC.

This case involves a dispute over a $10,000 penalty awarded for an employer's unreasonable delay in paying temporary disability benefits. The employer sought reconsideration, arguing no penalty petition was filed and the WCJ exceeded authority by holding an expedited hearing solely on the penalty. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and returned the case to the trial level. This action was taken due to an absence of evidence supporting the penalty, particularly regarding the timing of the employer's knowledge of the underpayment and their reasonableness.

Wenyuan FanYaya LoveInc.Oh Baby SushiTechnology Insurance CompanyAmtrustInc.ADJ11098848San Jose District OfficePetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Etex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. v. Sanders

H. B. Sanders sued Etex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. for trespass, alleging damages from an unauthorized burial of a telephone cable on his property in Marion County. Etex brought in Hutton Construction Company, Inc. and Fanning Engineers, Inc. as third-party defendants, claiming indemnity or contribution for contract non-compliance. Sanders subsequently added Hutton and Fanning as direct defendants. A jury found Etex and Fanning jointly and severally liable for actual damages of $11,900.00 and Etex solely liable for $10,000.00 in exemplary damages. Etex appealed, contesting the damages, the jury's findings, and the denial of indemnity from the third-party defendants. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the damage awards and rejecting Etex's arguments regarding the measure of damages, Sanders' alleged obstruction of cable removal, and claims for indemnity or contribution.

TrespassReal Property DamagesExemplary DamagesProperty EasementUtility CableContract DisputeJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewJoint and Several LiabilityIndemnity Claims
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stigall v. Wickes MacHinery, a Division of the Wickes Corp.

Ricky Stigall, the plaintiff, filed a tort action against Wickes Machinery and Robbins and Myers, Inc. (and its divisions). He was injured on September 9, 1981, while operating a die-casting machine during his employment with Hunter Fan and Ventilating Company, a subsidiary of Robbins and Myers, Inc. Stigall settled a workers' compensation claim against Hunter Fan. The trial court initially dismissed the action against Robbins and Myers entities, citing the Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Act. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding Robbins and Myers, Inc. was not Stigall's employer and thus not immune from tort liability. Robbins and Myers, Inc. appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court found that Hunter Fan and Ventilating Company and Robbins and Myers, Inc. were "identical or indistinguishable in fact" and that Robbins and Myers, Inc. was Stigall's employer, thereby granting it immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Act. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded the case to the trial court.

Corporate Veil PiercingWorkers' Compensation ImmunityParent-Subsidiary LiabilityEmployer DefinitionThird-Party Tort ActionSummary Judgment AppealCorporate IntegrationAgency TheoryTennessee LawDie-casting Machine Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palka v. Servicemaster Management Services Corp.

The dissenting opinion argues that the plaintiff, a nurse injured by a falling fan in a hospital, made a prima facie showing of negligence against the defendant, who had contracted with the hospital for maintenance services. The dissent asserts that the defendant failed to maintain the fan, leading to its dislodgement and the plaintiff's injury. It discusses the duty of reasonable care extending to third parties, distinguishing this case from others where tort liability was not extended beyond property owners. The dissent concludes that the defendant assumed a duty to the plaintiff and is responsible in tort for its negligence, therefore the judgment against the defendant should be affirmed.

NegligenceMaintenance ServicesThird-Party LiabilityContractual DutyForeseeable PlaintiffWorkers' CompensationTort LiabilityAssumption of DutyProperty Owner LiabilityDissenting Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Fanning v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a registered nurse, suffered a shoulder injury during a mandatory self-defense training in December 2005 while working for the Department of Disability Services. She applied for disability retirement benefits, with ordinary benefits approved but enhanced benefits denied by the Comptroller, who overruled a Hearing Officer's favorable decision. The core issue was whether the incident constituted an 'accident' under Retirement and Social Security Law. The court reviewed the Comptroller's determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. It was found that the injury arose from a routine job duty with inherent risks, thus not qualifying as an accident for enhanced benefits. Consequently, the Comptroller's denial of enhanced disability retirement benefits was upheld, and the petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Disability benefitsenhanced disabilityaccidentjob dutiesinherent riskself-defense trainingshoulder injuryComptrollerCPLR Article 78administrative review
References
15
Case No. ADJ2720526 (SAC 0364224)
Regular
May 15, 2012

GEORGE MARTINEZ vs. GREENHECK FAN CORPORATION

Applicant George Martinez filed a petition seeking disqualification of the workers' compensation judge (WCJ), alleging various procedural unfairnesses and racism during a discrimination trial. The WCJ recommended denial of the petition. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, finding Martinez failed to specify grounds for disqualification as required by statute and board rule. The WCAB found no evidence to support the allegations of bias or racism against the WCJ. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for DisqualificationLabor Code Section 5311Declaration of Readiness to ProceedWCJBiasRacistDiscriminationSection 132aOrder Vacating Submission
References
3
Case No. ADJ3132417 (AHM 0147500)
Regular
Oct 11, 2013

BRIAN FANNING vs. NISSAN OF GARDEN GROVE, PACIFIC COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's petition to remove an order from the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board regarding a medical lien. The defendant argued the lien claimant failed to pay the required activation fee before the lien conference, violating Labor Code section 4903.06(a)(4). The Board found the fee was paid after the conference commenced, and proof of payment wasn't provided, warranting dismissal with prejudice. The Board granted the petition and amended the prior order to dismiss the lien.

Petition for RemovalLien Activation FeeLien ConferenceDismissed with PrejudiceLabor Code Section 4903.06WCABEAMSOrder Approving Compromise & ReleaseWCJLien Trial
References
1
Case No. ADJ3706205
Regular
Sep 12, 2008

ANGELA FAN vs. GAMING FUND GROUP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Applicant and defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award regarding industrial injury. The WCJ's decision was affirmed with amendments clarifying the period of delayed permanent disability and defendant's credit.

ANGELA FANGAMING FUND GROUPSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDADJ3706205SJO 0245496OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONGRANTING PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDECISION AFTER RECONSIDERATIONFUNDED CARD PLAYERPERMANENT DISABILITY
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 17 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