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. 13-03-099-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Luciano Islas v. Central Ready Mix Concrete

Luciano Islas sued Central Ready Mix Concrete Company for injuries suffered while exiting a cement truck drum. The jury found Central Ready Mix 20% negligent and awarded Islas $290,000, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. On appeal, the Thirteenth District of Texas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Central Ready Mix was negligent and its negligence was a proximate cause of Islas's injuries, given its knowledge of past accidents and failure to ensure safety procedures for a dangerous outsourced activity. The court reinstated the jury's verdict, holding Central Ready Mix 20% liable.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorForeseeabilityJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictJury VerdictAppellate ReviewSafety ProceduresCement Truck
References
11
Case No. 2021-08-0990
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2022

Williams, Cornelius v. People Ready, Inc.

Cornelius Williams, an employee, injured his left knee at work. The employer, People Ready, Inc., failed to provide a panel of physicians, directing him to a walk-in clinic instead. After the clinic referred Williams to orthopedic surgeon Dr. John Lochemes, People Ready denied authorization and offered a belated panel. The Court ruled that People Ready's non-compliance with the statute made Dr. Lochemes the authorized treating physician, granting Williams's request for medical treatment. However, Williams's request for temporary disability benefits was denied due to insufficient proof of wage reduction. The case was referred to the Compliance Program for potential penalties against People Ready.

Workers' Compensation LawExpedited HearingMedical Treatment AuthorizationPanel Physician DisputeEmployer Non-ComplianceTemporary Disability BenefitsLeft Knee InjuryOrthopedic SurgeryMedical ReferralEmployer Responsibility
References
5
Case No. ADJ7106767
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

JORGE IBARRA vs. BEVERLY WILSHIRE HOTEL, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Applicant Ibarra's Petition for Removal regarding the order to take the case off calendar. The Board found Applicant failed to show significant prejudice from delaying trial to clarify if the primary treating physician possessed specific treadmill test results. Furthermore, the Board noted Applicant filed declarations of readiness to proceed while discovery, specifically a vocational expert report, remained incomplete, indicating the case was not trial-ready. The matter was returned to the WCJ to consider sanctions against Applicant's counsel for prematurely filing declarations of readiness.

Petition for RemovalOff CalendarMandatory Settlement ConferenceIndustrial InjuryCumulative PeriodPrimary Treating PhysicianVocational Expert ReportUncompleted DiscoveryQualified Medical EvaluatorSanctions Proceedings
References
2
Case No. ADJ7166891
Regular
Oct 31, 2013

NORMA MENDEZ MUNOZ vs. APPLIED POLYTECH SYSTEMS, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration and rescinded a WCJ's order dismissing a lien claim. The dismissal was based on the lien claimant's failure to pay a lien activation fee for a conference that was improperly added to the calendar. The WCAB found the conference was not properly set under Court Administrator Rule 10250 because no Declaration of Readiness to Proceed had been filed for that specific case, and the defendant's request for consolidation lacked necessary declarations. Therefore, the WCAB vacated the dismissal and ordered the matter off calendar, requiring a proper Declaration of Readiness to be filed to set the lien conference.

Lien activation feeReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedCourt Administrator Rule 10250EDEXEAMSWCJLien conferenceEx parte request
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Central Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas

Luciano Islas, an employee of independent contractor Eugene Taylor, sustained severe injuries while cleaning a concrete truck drum for Central Ready Mix Concrete Company, which lacked workers' compensation insurance. A jury initially found all parties partially at fault, but the trial court subsequently granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Central, holding Taylor solely liable. The court of appeals reversed this decision, but the Supreme Court of Texas overturned the appellate court's ruling, reinstating the original trial court judgment for Central. The Supreme Court emphasized that owners like Central generally owe no duty to ensure the safety practices of independent contractors' employees unless actual control is retained, and that the repair work was not inherently dangerous enough to impose a nondelegable duty. Therefore, Central was not held liable for Islas's injuries.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityDuty to WarnInherently Dangerous ActivityNondelegable DutyJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictTexas LawOccupational SafetyEmployer Liability
References
24
Case No. ADJ9155937
Regular
Dec 16, 2016

SYLVIA MC GILVARY vs. SAN DIEGUITO PRINTERS, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for removal. The defendant argued that the case should have proceeded to trial, not a priority conference, because the applicant did not object to the declaration of readiness. The Board rescinded the WCJ's order, returning the matter for a mandatory settlement conference. This will allow the applicant's attorney to present evidence regarding the objection to the declaration of readiness.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalMinute OrderMandatory Settlement ConferencePriority ConferenceDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWCJApplicantDefendantEAMS ADJ file
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Davis v. Labor Ready

Decedent, employed by Labor Ready, an employment agency, died in an automobile accident while being driven home from a temporary work assignment by a fellow Labor Ready employee, McKinley Barnes. Barnes was not working that day but volunteered to drive decedent and other employees, receiving a small payment from each employee for transportation. Claimant filed for workers’ compensation death benefits on behalf of decedent’s minor children, which were initially granted by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge but subsequently reversed and disallowed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The central issue was whether the accident occurred within the scope of employment, specifically if Labor Ready had assumed responsibility for transporting its employees. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding that Labor Ready did not have exclusive control of the conveyance, and therefore, the injuries were not sustained in the course of employment. The court also found no abuse of discretion by the Board in refusing claimant's rebuttal due to procedural deficiencies.

Workers' CompensationDeath Benefits ClaimScope of EmploymentCommuting AccidentEmployer Provided TransportationCarpooling ArrangementTemporary AgencyWorkers' Compensation Board ReversalAppellate AffirmationCausal Connection
References
13
Case No. 2015-08-0488
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2016

Wright, Ezell v. Labor Ready

Ezell Wright, an employee of Labor Ready, sustained a work-related back injury on October 22, 2014, while moving a copier. He initially received authorized treatment, but Labor Ready later ceased authorization, leading Mr. Wright to seek private medical care. Eventually, Labor Ready authorized Dr. Fereidoon Parsioon, a neurosurgeon, who recommended physical therapy and a return visit after releasing Mr. Wright to full-duty work. However, Labor Ready failed to authorize the follow-up visit and did not provide temporary disability benefits or light-duty work during his restrictions, prompting Mr. Wright to file for an Expedited Hearing. The Court found Mr. Wright entitled to continued medical treatment with Dr. Parsioon and awarded temporary disability benefits from October 22, 2014, to September 21, 2015, totaling $10,674.64, along with an attorney's fee of $2,134.93.

Workers' Compensation JudgeExpedited HearingMedical BenefitsTemporary Disability BenefitsLumbar StrainBack InjuryAuthorized Treating PhysicianAverage Weekly WageWeekly Compensation RateAttorney's Fee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watch Hill Homeowners Ass'n v. Town Board

The Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh proposed constructing a 1,000,000-gallon water tank and, acting as lead agency under SEQRA, designated it a "Type I" action. Despite identifying "potential large impacts" on the environment, the Board issued a negative declaration of environmental significance. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the issuance of the negative declaration as arbitrary and capricious. The court found that the Town Board failed to provide a "reasoned elaboration" for its determination, especially regarding the project's aesthetic impacts, which it deemed insufficient to justify a negative declaration. Consequently, the court annulled the Town Board's determination, granted the petition, and declared Resolution No. 93-46 and all subsequent construction authorizations invalid.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationCPLR Article 78Water Storage TankTown BoardGreenburghAesthetic ImpactEnvironmental AssessmentType I Action
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angello v. Labor Ready, Inc.

Labor Ready, Inc. and its subsidiary Labor Ready Northeast, Inc., temporary employment firms in western New York, paid their 18,000 workers daily. Employees could choose payment by check or a cash voucher, redeemable at a Labor Ready cash dispensing machine (CDM) for a fee. The State Department of Labor investigated complaints in 1999 regarding unlawful wage deductions, including these CDM fees. The Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) initially found no violation of Labor Law § 193 (1), deeming the CDM charge a voluntary, separate transaction. However, the Department of Labor commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Appellate Division reversed, concluding the fee deduction and wage payment were inseparably connected and violated Labor Law § 193. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that the fee deduction, even if optional, constituted an unlawful deduction from wages under Labor Law § 193 (1) (b) and (2), and contravened the legislative intent to protect employees from coercive economic arrangements.

Wage deductionsLabor LawTemporary employmentCash vouchersEmployer feesStatutory interpretationVoluntary deductionsLegislative intentEmployee protectionCPLR Article 78
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,176 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