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. ADJ6456347
Regular
Jan 30, 2012

MARK WILLIAMS vs. CITY OF PASADENA

This case involves a police officer claiming industrial injury to his heart due to hypertensive heart disease, a condition he argued was distinct from previously compensated hypertension. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the administrative law judge's decision, finding the claim was not barred by res judicata. The WCAB clarified that while hypertension alone is not considered heart trouble, left ventricular hypertrophy, as diagnosed in the current claim, constitutes a distinct condition. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other unresolved issues.

res judicatahypertensive heart diseasepolice officerLabor Code section 3212.5heart trouble presumptionleft ventricular hypertrophystipulated awardindustrial injurypermanent disabilityapportionment
References
6
Case No. ADJ12288761
Regular
Dec 29, 2020

MICHAEL GOMEZ vs. CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding a finding of 62% permanent disability for a correctional officer with cumulative trauma. The core issue was whether Left Ventricular Hypertrophy (LVH), found by a QME, constituted "heart trouble" under Labor Code section 3212.2, triggering a presumption of industrial injury. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, relying on prior case law and expert medical opinions that LVH, even if minor, qualifies as "heart trouble" for purposes of the presumption. Defendant's arguments that LVH was not "heart trouble" and that medical opinions were contradicted were rejected as insufficient to rebut the presumption.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Institution for Womencorrectional officercumulative traumainternal organshypertensionGERDheart trouble presumptionLabor Code section 3212.2Left Ventricular Hypertrophy
References
13
Case No. ADJ10763960
Regular
May 20, 2019

DENNIS ROMERO vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

This case involves a workers' compensation appeal where the defendant, County of San Diego, sought reconsideration of an award granting the applicant, Dennis Romero, permanent disability. The defendant argued that the administrative law judge improperly overlapped factors of disability when assessing the applicant's $94\%$ permanent disability rating. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, adopting the judge's report which found that the qualified medical evaluator considered factors beyond shortness of breath, such as left ventricular hypertrophy and lightheadedness, when determining impairments for hypertensive and coronary heart disease. The Board also cited legal precedent that the multiple disabilities rating schedule accounts for any overlap.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings Award and OrderDeputy SheriffIndustrial InjuryHeart InjuryHypertensionPermanent DisabilityHypertensive Heart DiseaseCoronary Heart Disease
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 1995

Claim of Tomlin v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

The claimant, a site manager for 23 years, began experiencing chest pains in February 1984. His employer granted him a medical leave and requested documentation. The claimant's treating physician, Patrick McAndrew, diagnosed essential hypertension, left ventricular hypertrophy, and chest pain of undetermined origin. The employer then used a disability claim form as a claim for a self-administered salary continuation plan, paying benefits under it. After an examination by the employer's physician, John Walters, who found no organic heart disease, the employer terminated the claimant, considering his absence a voluntary termination due to lack of a "bona fide" disability. The claimant subsequently filed for statutory disability benefits and a claim for discriminatory discharge with the Workers’ Compensation Board, alleging a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 241 for retaliation. The Board asserted jurisdiction, found discrimination, but reduced damages due to the claimant's failure to actively seek employment. The employer appealed, arguing lack of jurisdiction and insufficient evidence, but the decision was affirmed.

References
3
Case No. 03-14-00717-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2014

Vivek Goswami, M.D. and Austin Heart, PLLC v. Nancy Jo Rodriguez

Nancy Jo Rodriguez filed a health care liability claim against Vivek Goswami, M.D., and Austin Heart, PLLC, alleging negligence related to her continued use of the drug Pradaxa. Rodriguez claims that despite an order from Dr. David Kessler to discontinue Pradaxa, Dr. Goswami failed to follow this order, and nurses/staff at Austin Heart authorized refills. This, she alleges, led to her hospitalization. Appellants objected to the expert report by Dr. Jeffrey A. Breall, arguing it was conclusory, lacked factual support, and failed to adequately define the standard of care, breach, and causation for each appellant. The trial court denied Appellants' motion to dismiss, finding Dr. Breall's report adequate. Appellants are appealing this denial, contending the trial court abused its discretion as the report did not constitute a good-faith effort to comply with Chapter 74 requirements, effectively negating its purpose by concealing facts and offering vague conclusions.

Medical MalpracticeExpert Report AdequacyTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAbuse of DiscretionStandard of CareBreach of DutyCausationConclusory Expert OpinionsMotion to DismissPradaxa Medication
References
24
Case No. 03-02-00196-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Heart Hospital IV, L.P. and Texas Workforce Commission v. Charles A. King

Charles A. King, an employee of Heart Hospital IV, L.P., was denied unemployment benefits by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) after failing a drug test. King sought judicial review, initially filing in Travis County and later refiling in Bastrop County, 125 days after the TWC's final decision. Heart Hospital and TWC challenged the refiling, arguing King missed the 14-day statutory deadline for judicial review. The district court denied TWC's plea to the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 14-day deadline in the labor code is a jurisdictional prerequisite, making the sixty-day tolling provision of section 16.064 and equitable tolling inapplicable. Consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction, and the cause was dismissed.

Unemployment BenefitsJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory DeadlinesJudicial ReviewTexas Labor CodePlea to JurisdictionTolling ProvisionsEquitable TollingCourt of AppealsAdministrative Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bullock v. American Heart Ass'n

Carole Bullock was discharged from her employment with the American Heart Association (AHA) and entered into a separation agreement. AHA mistakenly overpaid Bullock, who then refused to return the funds, alleging unlawful employment practices and demanding more money. AHA sued to recover the overpayments. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of AHA on most issues and awarded attorney's fees. Bullock appealed, contending the trial court erred in granting summary judgment, enforcing a jury waiver, and quashing subpoenas. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Bullock's arguments were without merit.

Breach of Separation AgreementSummary JudgmentJury Waiver EnforcementApex DepositionEmployment DisputeOverpayment RecoveryAttorney's FeesAppellate ProcedureWaiver of ClaimsAge Discrimination Claims
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart

This case concerns Keith Bauer, a window cleaner, who was severely injured after falling from a third-story window while working for Environmental Service Systems at the Female Academy of the Sacred Heart. The accident occurred due to a safety hook becoming stuck on a square anchor, which violated Industrial Code standards. The primary legal issues were whether claims under Labor Law § 202 and Labor Law § 240 (1) could coexist, and if Labor Law § 202 imposed strict liability or comparative negligence. The Court of Appeals held that both Labor Law claims can be pursued simultaneously and determined that Labor Law § 202 is a comparative negligence statute, not a strict liability one. The court modified previous rulings by reinstating the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim for further proceedings, while affirming the comparative negligence approach for the Labor Law § 202 claim.

Window Cleaner InjuryLabor LawStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceSafety AnchorsIndustrial Code ViolationConstruction SafetyThird-Party ActionStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Inc. v. Dowling

This nonpayment proceeding addresses respondents Robert and Jessica Dowling's motion to dismiss, alleging petitioner Missionary Sisters of the Sacred Heart, Inc. failed to comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The court examined whether the rent demand and the petition constituted 'communications' under the FDCPA, ultimately concluding they did not violate the Act's provisions in this context. Furthermore, the court determined that even if an FDCPA violation occurred, it would not serve as a defense to the underlying eviction proceeding. The decision also rejected the argument that state law (RPAPL) is preempted by federal FDCPA, finding that the two can be reconciled. Consequently, the court denied the respondents' motion to dismiss in its entirety.

FDCPADebt CollectionNonpayment ProceedingRent DemandMotion to DismissStatutory PenaltiesPreemption DoctrineCreditor-Debtor RelationsSummary EvictionFormal Pleadings
References
22
Case No. ADJ4400372 (SAC 0282814)
Regular
May 08, 2009

MICHAEL GRIFFIN vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the WCJ's denial of the applicant's petition to reopen. The Board found that the applicant established good cause to reopen for new and further disability related to his left thumb and heart injuries sustained during his employment with the California Highway Patrol. Substantial medical evidence supported the cumulative trauma to the left thumb and the presumption under Labor Code section 3212.3 applied to the heart injury. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

ReconsiderationPetition to ReopenNew and Further DisabilityGood CauseLabor Code Section 3212.3Presumption StatuteIndustrial CausationCumulative TraumaStipulated AwardLeft Thumb Injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,935 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