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. 07-02-0011-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2003

Cresthaven Nursing Residence v. Freeman

This case involves an appeal in a health care liability claim where the appellees, daughters of Wanda Granger, sued Cresthaven Nursing Residence, Cantex Healthcare Centers, and its general partners for negligence that allegedly resulted in Granger's injury and death. A jury awarded $9 million, which was subject to a statutory damage cap. The appellate court initially found prejudgment interest was not subject to the cap and suggested remittiturs for excessive damages. However, on rehearing, the court modified its decision, aligning with a new Supreme Court ruling that prejudgment interest is included in the damage cap, and affirmed the judgment with an adjusted cap of $1,413,008.13. Key issues included the application of the damage cap, prejudgment interest calculation, spoliation instruction, and expert witness qualification.

Health Care LiabilityMedical MalpracticeNursing Home NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival ActionDamage CapPrejudgment InterestSpoliation of EvidenceExpert Witness QualificationExcessive Damages
References
39
Case No. ADJ8260810
Regular
Jul 07, 2015

DANIEL STRYZINSKI vs. NEW YORK JETS, THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TIG INSURANCE, ATLANTA FALCONS, PITTSBURGH STEELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied an applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's (ALJ) decision that California lacks jurisdiction over his cumulative trauma claim. The ALJ found that the applicant's participation in only 21 out of 275 professional football games played in California did not establish a sufficient connection to the state for due process purposes. The majority opinion relied on the *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)* case, holding that California's interest was not substantial enough to assert jurisdiction given the applicant's lack of residency and hiring in the state. A dissenting opinion argued that California has a legitimate interest in compensating workers injured within its borders and that the applicant's connection was more than "de minimis," thus supporting WCAB jurisdiction.

StryzinskiProfessional AthleteCumulative TraumaJurisdictionDue ProcessFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Legitimate and Substantial InterestDe MinimisExtraterritorial ProvisionsLabor Code section 3600.5
References
2
Case No. 03-11-00602-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2012

Texas Department of Public Safety v. Anonymous Adult Texas Resident

The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) appealed a trial court's judgment that reversed its determination requiring an anonymous Texas resident to register as a sex offender under the Texas Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The central legal question involved whether a 1993 Massachusetts conviction for "indecent assault and battery" was "substantially similar" to a reportable Texas sex offense. DPS contended the trial court erred by excluding a police report detailing the victim's allegations and in its "substantial similarity" finding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the elements of the Massachusetts statute were not substantially similar to those of Texas sexual assault, indecency with a child, or related attempted offenses. Therefore, the anonymous resident was not required to register as a sex offender in Texas under SORA, rendering the evidentiary exclusion issue moot.

Sex Offender RegistrationSORASubstantial Similarity TestMassachusetts LawTexas LawCriminal ProcedureSexual AssaultIndecent Assault and BatteryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Case No. ADJ8750277
Regular
Jun 26, 2013

RUTH SHAW vs. PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION, SUTTER HEALTH

This case concerns a dispute over venue for a workers' compensation claim. The defendant objected to the initial venue in Anaheim, arguing it was improper as the applicant resided in Santa Cruz County and the injury occurred there. The Appeals Board found that both Felton (applicant's residence) and Santa Cruz (injury location) are within Santa Cruz County, which lacks a local Appeals Board office. Therefore, venue was properly changed to the Salinas district office, which is the nearest to the applicant's residence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.5(c)Venue VerificationApplicant's ResidenceLocation of InjuryNearest Appeals Board OfficeSalinasSanta Cruz County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1988

Osborn v. Planning Board of the Town of Colonie

Petitioners Betsy J. Osborn and Daniel L. Orne sought commercial site plan approval to use a portion of their Albany County home as a professional office for Osborn, a certified social worker, in an A-l residential zone. The Town of Colonie Planning Board initially denied their application, stating it was not a permitted use. After a CPLR article 78 proceeding compelled a decision, the Board formally denied the application, arguing the proposed office was not 'customarily incident and accessory' to residential use. The Supreme Court annulled the Board's decision and ordered approval, finding the proposed use qualified as an 'accessory use' under the Town's zoning code. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, holding that Osborn's professional office, which utilized less than 20% of the residence, maintained the residential character, and provided off-street parking, was clearly an accessory use, satisfying all ordinance requirements.

Zoning LawAccessory UseHome OccupationProfessional OfficeResidential ZoneCPLR Article 78Site Plan ApprovalAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ1054155 (LAO 0854446) ADJ1247741 (LAO 0854447) ADJ1895803 (LAO 0854448)
Regular
May 03, 2011

HIRITI OKUAMICHAEL vs. PAUL OWENS SHOES INC., STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This amended order clarifies that the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of the February 8, 2011 Findings and Awards. This reconsideration aims to allow the Board to thoroughly study the factual and legal issues, including those to be raised in the applicant's supplemental petition. The applicant's request to file a supplemental petition has also been granted and reaffirmed. All future communications regarding these cases should be directed to the Office of the Commissioners of the WCAB.

Supplemental PetitionReconsiderationAppeals Board Rule 10848Findings and AwardsDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersWCABADJ1054155ADJ1247741ADJ1895803
References
0
Case No. ADJ9016733
Regular
May 03, 2016

TYSON CONGER vs. CARE AMBULANCE, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for reconsideration of a prior award concerning industrial injuries to his low back and psyche. The applicant argues the original findings did not properly weigh evidence and support a higher permanent disability rating. The Board also permitted the applicant to file a supplemental petition to address new information, allowing defendants an opportunity to respond. Reconsideration was granted to ensure a complete review of the record and a just decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionEmergency Medical TechnicianLow Back InjuryPsyche InjuryTemporary DisabilityFuture Medical TreatmentPermanent DisabilityApportionment
References
1
Case No. M2011-00911-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2011

Orlando Residence, LTD. v. Nashville Lodging Company, Nashville Residence Corp., and Kenneth E. Nelson

This appeal concerns the effective date of a judgment against Kenneth E. Nelson, which dictates whether the judgment has expired. The Appellant argued that the doctrines of equitable estoppel and law of the case should prevent the Plaintiff from asserting that the judgment was entered in 2004. The trial court determined that the judgment had not expired, holding its effective date to be October 7, 2004, following a remand that resolved a statute of limitations issue and vacated the original 2000 judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding the issues justiciable and within the chancery court's jurisdiction, and rejected the arguments based on the law-of-the-case doctrine and equitable estoppel.

Judgment ExpirationStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelLaw of the CaseFraudulent ConveyancePost-Judgment InterestSubject Matter JurisdictionDirect AppealAppellate ReviewDavidson County Chancery Court
References
34
Case No. ADJ1323942
Regular
Jan 25, 2010

JANN WASHINGTON vs. DAVIS COMPANIES, FIREMAN'S FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the applicant's medical mileage reimbursement. The Board amended the prior award to allow reimbursement for travel between the applicant's Nevada residence and her California treating physician. The employer failed to prove that equally effective treatment was available closer to the applicant's residence, thus their objection to the extended mileage was denied. The specific amount of reimbursement is to be determined by the parties, with jurisdiction reserved for dispute resolution.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryUpper ExtremitiesMedical TreatmentMedical MileageReconsiderationResidenceGeographic AreaTreating PhysicianEmployer Burden
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Cypresswood Land Partners, I

The case involves an objection by Cypresswood Land Partners, I (Debtor) to the final fee application of its former counsel, Beirne, Maynard & Parsons, L.L.C. (BMP), in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Debtor alleged that BMP failed to properly disengage from representing Stephen A. Morrow, the Debtor's managing venturer, individually, and failed to adequately disclose this continued representation to the court. Additionally, the Debtor claimed BMP's final application was untimely filed, and an agreement signed by Morrow, which made him and another entity (Grace Interests, L.L.C.) liable for BMP's fees, was overreaching. The Bankruptcy Court sustained the Debtor's objections, denying all compensation and reimbursement to BMP, and ordering the firm to disgorge all fees already paid. The court found that BMP violated professional conduct rules, failed to disclose conflicts, filed late without cause, and presented an overreaching agreement.

BankruptcyChapter 11Attorney FeesFee Application ObjectionProfessional EthicsConflict of InterestDisclosure ViolationDisgorgement of FeesUntimely FilingFiduciary Duty
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 14,478 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