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. ADJ8596014
Regular
Nov 07, 2018

DION GEORGE vs. KJI PLUMBING, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a $\$ 750$ sanction imposed by a WCJ against defense counsel and KJI Plumbing for defense counsel's failure to appear at a hearing. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the failure to appear was due to defense counsel's negligence, not willful misconduct. Consequently, the Board reduced the sanction to $\$ 250$ and removed KJI Plumbing as a liable party, solely sanctioning defense counsel and his law office. The Board cautioned that future failures to appear could establish a pattern justifying larger sanctions.

Petition for ReconsiderationOrder Imposing SanctionsWCJDefense CounselJointly and SeverallyUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundMandatory Settlement ConferenceDeclaration of ReadinessLabor Code § 5813WCAB Rule 10561
References
0
Case No. No. 05-22-00997-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2023

Penny L. Yates v. Wendy Hurtado

This case involves an appeal from a trial court's dismissal of Penny L. Yates's counterclaim against Wendy Hurtado for failure to appear at trial. Yates contended that she was not properly notified by the court coordinator regarding her appearance date, despite explicit communication where the coordinator promised to call her Houston-based counsel. The trial court denied Yates's motion for a new trial, leading to this appeal. The appellate court found that Yates provided a reasonable explanation for her absence, concluding that her failure to appear was not intentional or due to conscious indifference. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the denial of the motion for new trial, vacated the dismissal order, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Trial Court DismissalFailure to AppearMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionReversalRemandTexas Rules of Civil Procedure 165aConscious IndifferenceAccident or MistakeCourt Coordinator Communication
References
9
Case No. ADJ928027
Regular
Feb 03, 2016

DAVID TRINH vs. TZENG LONG USA, INC., BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY

This case involves the suspension of Mike Traw's privilege to appear before the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) under Labor Code Section 4907. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to suspend due to non-payment of sanctions and failure to respond. While Professional Lien Services, Inc. (PLS) sought extensions, neither Traw nor PLS provided a substantive response. Consequently, Traw's appearance privilege is suspended for ninety days due to his failure to comply with the WCAB's orders. Further action against PLS may occur if ordered sanctions remain unpaid.

Labor Code Section 4907Decision After RemovalNotice of IntentionSuspension of PrivilegeProfessional Lien ServicesMike TrawAppeals Board En BancSanction OrderInterference with Judicial ProcessWCAB
References
0
Case No. ADJ3118083
Regular
Jun 14, 2010

MARCELO SANDOVAL vs. TRITON CHANDELIER, INC., SPECIALTY RISK LA HABRA

The applicant seeks reconsideration of a case dismissed for failure to appear at a mandatory settlement conference. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the petition timely filed. However, the Board issued a notice of intention to impose sanctions on applicant's counsel for failing to appear at the conference and failing to notify the Board. Applicant's counsel must show good cause within 15 days to avoid a $250.00 sanction for causing unnecessary delay.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceNotice of Intention to DismissLabor Code § 5813sanctionsgood causeuntimely filingunverified petitionEAMS
References
2
Case No. 11-15-00245-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2017

Charles Robert Gauger v. Margie Tidwell Gauger

Charles Robert Gauger appeals a post-answer default judgment entered against him in his divorce case due to his failure to appear at the final hearing. Gauger, who had significant health issues and had replaced his counsel multiple times, claimed he mistakenly believed a new lawyer, Landon Northcutt, would secure a continuance or appear for him, despite admitting he never paid the full required retainer. The trial court had explicitly warned Gauger that no further continuances would be granted. The appellate court reviewed the denial of Gauger's motion for a new trial under the Craddock test. The court found that Gauger failed to establish the first element, conscious indifference, given his history with legal representation, his failure to pay the retainer, and his disregard of the trial court's clear admonitions. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment.

DivorceDefault JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ProcedureTexas LawAttorney RepresentationContinuance
References
20
Case No. 05-22-00310-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2023

John Panakkal Joy v. US Lloyds Insurance Company as Subrogee of Fred Sanchez and USAA Casualty Insurance Company

John Panakkal Joy appeals a post-answer default judgment. He contended that the trial court erred in granting the default judgment and denying his motion for new trial because he did not receive notice of the trial setting and default judgment hearing. Alternatively, Joy argued that the uncontroverted evidence established the three elements of the Craddock test: failure to appear was not intentional, he had a meritorious defense, and granting a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding that Joy's counsel's failure to appear was due to a mistaken belief that a motion for continuance would be granted, that Joy presented prima facie meritorious defenses (lack of negligence, lack of causation, sudden emergency), and that the appellees failed to prove injury from a new trial. The court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock ElementsAppellate ProcedureTexas LawAutomobile AccidentInsurance SubrogationAbuse of DiscretionConscious IndifferenceMeritorious Defense
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Christopher Utz, Utz Environmental Services v. McKenzie, Duffy

This appeal reviews a trial court's denial of a motion for new trial following a default judgment. Appellee Duffy McKenzie obtained a default judgment against appellants Christopher Utz and his associated environmental contracting companies for unpaid wages. Appellants sought a new trial, claiming their failure to answer was due to a mistaken belief that settlement negotiations were ongoing with McKenzie's counsel, Thomas Urquidez, and not due to intentional disregard. The trial court denied the motion for new trial and a subsequent motion to reconsider. On appeal, appellants contended the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motions. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to satisfy the first element of the Craddock test, which requires demonstrating that the failure to appear was not intentional or a result of conscious indifference. The court also denied appellants' motion for sanctions against McKenzie's counsel.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialCraddock TestConscious IndifferenceIntentional Failure to AnswerSettlement NegotiationsAppellate ReviewSanctionsAbuse of DiscretionLegal Ethics
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sasser v. Kelley

Petitioner Andrew Sasser, convicted of capital murder, sought federal habeas corpus relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel during his sentencing phase. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case, requiring a determination of whether Sasser was ineligible for the death penalty due to intellectual disability (an Atkins claim) and consideration of four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. This Court focused on three ineffective assistance claims: failure to prepare for the sentencing phase, failure to obtain a timely psychological evaluation, and failure to meaningfully consult with a mental health professional. The Court found that trial counsel's failure to conduct a thorough investigation, timely obtain a psychological evaluation, and meaningfully consult with a qualified mental health professional constituted ineffective assistance. Consequently, postconviction counsel's failure to raise these claims was also deemed ineffective, excusing procedural default. The petition for habeas corpus relief was granted.

Ineffective assistance of counselHabeas corpusDeath penaltyIntellectual disabilityProcedural defaultAtkins claimSentencing phaseMitigation evidencePsychological evaluationMental health expert
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Falbaum v. Pomerantz

Five former managerial employees of Leslie Fay sued four current employees and the company's outside counsel for age discrimination under federal (ADEA), New York State (NYHRL), Pennsylvania (PHRA), and New York City (NYCCRL) laws. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing they are not subject to personal liability under ADEA, NYHRL, and PHRA, and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under PHRA and NYCCRL. The court had previously dismissed legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Leslie Fay's general counsel and outside counsel. The court granted the motion to dismiss claims under ADEA, NYHRL, and PHRA, finding that these statutes generally do not impose personal liability on individual employees, but rather focus on employer liability. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims under the NYCCRL because its plain language explicitly allows for liability against "an employer or an employee or agent thereof", and plaintiffs demonstrated compliance with administrative requirements. Therefore, the case proceeds only on the New York City Civil Rights Law claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawPersonal LiabilityEmployer LiabilityADEANYHRLPHRANYCCRLRespondeat SuperiorMotion to Dismiss
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 6,852 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