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. ADJ1756675 (STK 0194632) ADJ2792711 (STK 0194633)
Regular
Sep 21, 2009

Scott Davis vs. RMC PACIFIC MATERIALS, INC., TRAVELERS INDEMNITY OF ILLINOIS

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Joint Findings and Award concerning industrial injuries to his right arm, shoulder, neck, psyche, and right foot/ankle. The WCJ deferred the issue of permanent disability for further medical development. The applicant's petition for reconsideration, which challenged this deferral, was dismissed. This dismissal was based on the principle that reconsideration can only be sought from a final order, and the WCJ's deferral of issues for further development is an interlocutory procedural decision. The applicant may seek reconsideration of a final award once permanent disability is determined.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationJoint Findings and AwardIndustrial InjuryWelder/MechanicRight ArmShoulderNeckPsycheTemporary Disability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Fur Liners Contractors Ass'n v. Lucchi

The court considered whether Civil Practice Act section 882-a typically permits framing issues for a contempt proceeding. It was determined that under ordinary circumstances, it does not. However, the appellants, having themselves objected to proceeding without framed issues, were precluded from raising an objection on that ground. The court found the framed issues sufficient to address the questions presented in the case. Consequently, the order under appeal was unanimously affirmed, with associated costs and disbursements.

contempt of courtframing issuesappellate procedurecivil practice actunanimous affirmationprocedural objectionappellate costsjudicial review
References
0
Case No. ADJ1875813 (LAO 0824737)
Regular
Apr 24, 2012

NORA H. LUNA vs. ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS, TRAVELERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal in this case. The defendant sought to amend an order that continued issues of temporary disability and penalties to trial. The Board found that the "issues" struck by the judge were merely factual statements, not determinative issues themselves. Given the ample time that had passed since the initial deferral order, the Board found no significant prejudice to the defendant in proceeding to trial.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement ConferenceTemporary DisabilityPenaltiesAttorney's FeesCase in ChiefPrimary Treating PhysicianAgreed Medical EvaluatorApplicant's AttorneyFinding and Order
References
0
Case No. ADJ10133424
Regular
Jun 27, 2025

Braulio Espinoza vs. Standard Drywall, Inc.; Zurich North American Insurance/American Zurich Insurance Company

Applicant Braulio Espinoza sought reconsideration of a WCJ's decision regarding his permanent disability rating, contending the WCJ erred in failing to find him permanently totally disabled despite vocational evidence. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, noting that the WCJ's finding on the vocational reporting was premature given the deferral of the psychiatric injury rating issue. The Board will conduct a further review of the factual and legal issues to issue a just and reasoned final decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical EvaluatorPermanent Disability Rating ScheduleVocational ExpertRebuttalWhole Person ImpairmentLabor CodeAMA GuidesPsychiatric InjuryFunctional Capacity Evaluation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. Greer

This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a libel suit filed by Salem Abraham against Daniel Greer and Fix the Facts Foundation d/b/a AgendaWise. The dismissal occurred under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to consider remaining issues, including journalist privilege, the status of Greer and AgendaWise as journalists, and the constitutionality of Chapters 22 and 27 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals overruled all issues, affirming the trial court's dismissal. It found that Abraham failed to preserve his complaints regarding the trial court's failure to rule on privilege objections and the journalist status, and concluded that the interplay between Chapters 22 and 27 did not unconstitutionally abridge Abraham's common law remedy for defamation under the open courts provision, as discovery was permissible, albeit limited.

LibelDefamationJournalist PrivilegeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 22Anti-SLAPP StatuteOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
13
Case No. ADJ1030139 (STK 0203781)
Regular
Nov 19, 2014

GERALD REESE vs. MICRODENTAL LABORATORIES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE, AIG CLAIMS SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review the permanent disability rating for applicant Gerald Reese, who sustained an industrial injury in 2006. The primary issue was whether to include a deconditioning impairment, rated by a PQME using analogy, into the permanent disability award. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision but amended it to defer the issue of permanent disability for further proceedings. This deferral is to allow the WCJ to issue rating instructions based on the established legal framework for incorporating AMA Guides impairments, even those addressed by analogy.

PQMEdeconditioningAMA Guideswhole person impairmentanalogyLabor Code section 4660Almaraz/Guzman IIMilpitas Unified School Dist.City of Sacramento v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.rating instructions
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1995

Hickey v. C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Roland E. Hickey, a labor supervisor, was injured after falling from a plank across a sluiceway at a dam construction site. He and his wife sued the owner, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NY-SEG), and the general contractor, C. D. Perry & Sons, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants then filed a third-party action against Hickey's employer, Prepakt Concrete Company, for contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of strict liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss this claim, asserting the "recalcitrant worker" defense. The Supreme Court denied both motions, finding unresolved factual questions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' motion, agreeing that factual issues persisted regarding whether adequate safety devices were provided and whether the plaintiff refused to use them, or if the plank itself was unauthorized and its use prohibited.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentRecalcitrant WorkerFall from HeightSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndemnificationContribution
References
2
Case No. ADJ7469391
Regular
Apr 22, 2013

DANIEL DIAZ NEGRON vs. CLEAR WATER HANDWASH dba MARINA CLASSIC CAR WASH, STATE FARM

This case involves a lien claimant, Best of California Business Promotions, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed because it was based on an assumed dismissal of their lien that had not actually occurred. The lien claimant failed to appear at a scheduled lien trial and did not provide good cause for their absence. Furthermore, the Appeals Board is issuing a notice of intention to impose sanctions up to $1,000 against the lien claimant and its representatives for filing a frivolous petition and wasting judicial resources by arguing an issue not supported by the record. The Board is also removing the case on its own motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of RemovalSanctionsLabor Code 5813Lien ClaimantNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienNon-Appearance at TrialLien Activation FeeUnconstitutional
References
1
Case No. ADJ4141215 (MON 0288595) ADJ4160601 (MON 0288596) ADJ2249717 (MON 0300098)
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

DOREEN LABOY vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND / STATE CONTRACT SERVICES, Adjusting Agency

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, finding their argument regarding AMA Guidelines irrelevant due to a prior stipulation to the 1997 Rating Schedule. The WCAB granted removal to issue notices of intention to impose sanctions and award attorney's fees/costs against the defendant and their counsel. This action is based on the defendant's frivolous and bad-faith tactics in raising an issue for the first time on reconsideration that was not previously litigated or argued. The defendant's petition is deemed without merit and solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.

LABOYDOREENSTATE OF CALIFORNIADEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTHSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDJOINT FINDINGS AND AWARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONREMOVALNOTICES OF INTENTIONORDER TO PAY EXPENSES
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 11,855 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