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. ADJ12768897
Regular
Jun 16, 2025

LUCIANO GONZALEZ MENDOZA vs. CARROL AND STRONG BUILDERS, PEDRO PILLAR LOPEZ, SOUTHEAST PESONNEL LEASING COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant PL Construction/Pedro Lopez sought reconsideration of a March 24, 2025 Findings and Order by a workers' compensation arbitrator that found them uninsured for an injury to Luciano Gonzalez Mendoza. The Appeals Board granted the petition for reconsideration, citing insufficient notice of case transmission to the parties and an incomplete arbitration record. The Board issued a Notice of Intention to rescind the arbitrator's decision and return the matter for further proceedings if a complete record is not filed within thirty days.

Petition for ReconsiderationRescind Arbitrator's DecisionInsufficient EvidenceUninsured StatusAmbiguity in CoverageImplied-in-Fact ContractEstoppelPublic PolicyLabor Code § 5909Electronic Adjudication Management System
References
17
Case No. 03-08-00793-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2010

Public Utility Commission of Texas And Electric Transmission Texas, LLC v. Cities of Harlingen, McAllen, Mission, Port Lavaca, Rockport, and Victoria State of Texas And Texas Industrial Energy Consumers

This case involves an administrative appeal challenging a Public Utility Commission (PUC) order that approved Electric Transmission Texas, LLC (ETT)'s formation transactions, transfer of transmission equipment, and initial rates. The district court reversed the PUC order, finding it exceeded statutory authority by granting a certificate of convenience and necessity (CCN) to ETT and erred in denying municipalities' expenses. The appeals court affirmed the district court's remand for reconsideration of municipalities' expenses, but reversed the remainder of the district court's judgment, ultimately affirming the PUC's final order concerning the CCN grant and formation transactions.

Administrative LawPublic Utility CommissionElectric Transmission Texas, LLCCertificate of Convenience and NecessityPublic Utility Regulatory ActStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessSubject Matter JurisdictionSubstantial Evidence ReviewRatemaking Proceeding Expenses
References
24
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00983 [213 AD3d 905]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

Castano v. Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC

Nick Castano, the plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, in his personal injury action against Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, and Henkels & McCoy, Inc., alleging Labor Law violations. Castano sustained injuries while working on a pipeline project when a heavy pipe allegedly struck his leg. The Supreme Court had previously granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied Castano's cross-motions for summary judgment and to amend his bill of particulars. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granting Castano leave to amend his bill of particulars. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Castano's cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, noting the existence of triable issues of fact regarding proximate causation and the adequacy of safety devices.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskPipeline ProjectIndustrial CodePleading Amendment
References
17
Case No. NO. 01-87-00137-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 1987

Valero Transmission Company v. Mitchell Energy Corporation

This case involves an appeal by Valero Transmission Company against a temporary injunction ordering it to purchase specific quantities of natural gas from Mitchell Energy Corporation, pursuant to an existing gas purchase agreement. The trial court found Valero in breach, leading to gas drainage from Mitchell's leases and imminent lease loss. The appellate court affirmed the injunction, rejecting Valero's arguments regarding lack of subject matter jurisdiction, illegality based on market demand, the applicability of a force majeure clause, and Mitchell's alleged 'unclean hands.' The court concluded that the injunction served to preserve the status quo and did not require Valero to violate Texas law or Railroad Commission regulations.

Gas purchase contractTemporary injunctionBreach of contractMarket demandForce majeureDrainageLease preservationTexas Railroad CommissionSubject matter jurisdictionAppellate review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valero Transmission Co. v. Mitchell Energy Corp.

Valero Transmission Company appealed a temporary injunction requiring it to purchase gas from Mitchell Energy Corporation per their contract. The trial court found Valero breached the contract, leading to drainage from Mitchell's leases and potential loss of 11 leases. Valero contended the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the injunction was an abuse of discretion due to illegality, lack of irreparable harm, and the availability of an adequate remedy at law, and that a force majeure event excused performance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, overruling Valero's contentions by finding the trial court had jurisdiction, the injunction was not illegal or an abuse of discretion, and Mitchell had demonstrated probable irreparable harm without an adequate legal remedy. Furthermore, the court determined that an economic downturn did not qualify as an unforeseeable event under the force majeure clause and that the injunction appropriately preserved the status quo.

Temporary InjunctionBreach of ContractGas Purchase AgreementMarket DemandForce MajeureIrreparable HarmAdequate Remedy at LawJurisdictionTexas Railroad CommissionOil and Gas Law
References
27
Case No. 05-11-01019-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2013

Big D Transmission & Auto Service, Inc. v. Kary Lynn Rollins

Big D Transmission & Auto Service, Inc. appealed the denial of its motion for a new trial following a no-answer default judgment. Kary Lynn Rollins sued Big D for violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), conversion, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation. Rollins served Big D by substituted service on the secretary of state after unsuccessful attempts to serve its registered agent. The Court of Appeals found that the secretary of state's certificate conclusively established service and that Big D failed to prove its failure to answer was not due to conscious indifference. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, overruling Big D's arguments regarding the new trial, DTPA claim sufficiency, and damages.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialService of ProcessSubstituted ServiceRegistered AgentDeceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA)DamagesMarket ValueAbuse of DiscretionAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Angulo v. City of New York

In a personal injury action, the defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The original order denied the City's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to timely serve a notice of claim and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to deem his notice of claim timely served nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff, injured in May 2005, served his notice of claim in August 2005, which the City rejected as untimely. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granting the City's motion to dismiss the complaint and denying the plaintiff's cross-motion. The court held that timely service of a notice of claim is a condition precedent to suing the City and that the plaintiff failed to make a timely application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. Furthermore, the court ruled that the plaintiff could not rely on the workers' compensation carrier's notice of claim.

Personal InjuryNotice of ClaimTimelinessCondition PrecedentCPLR 3211(a)(7)General Municipal Law § 50-eDismissal of ComplaintLate Notice of ClaimNunc Pro TuncWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2007

Lentz v. Spanky's Restaurant II, Inc.

This Amended Order addresses a plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members in a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The plaintiff, a waiter, alleges that defendants Spanky’s Restaurant II, Inc. d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse, Lisa West, and Lady West Enterprises, LTD d/b/a Double Nickel Steakhouse violated FLSA by requiring waitstaff to participate in a "tip pool" with expediters who do not customarily receive tips and by failing to display required notice. The court, considering both the Lusardi and Shushan approaches to class certification, denied the plaintiff's motion. The denial was based on the plaintiff's failure to identify a sufficient number of similarly situated individuals and to provide adequate factual evidence beyond conclusory allegations. The court also noted the novelty of defining expediters' eligibility for tip-sharing and concerns about the breadth of the proposed notice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for notice to potential class members was denied.

FLSACollective ActionTip PoolingClass CertificationSimilarly SituatedWage and HourEmployment LawFair Labor Standards ActNotice RequirementsDenial of Motion
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Isereau v. Brushton-Moira School District

This case concerns consolidated appeals from Supreme Court orders granting petitioners Darrell Isereau and Jason K. Houghton leave to file late notices of claim against Brushton-Moira School District. The petitioners, employees of Bette & Cring, LLC, were injured in a construction accident in August 2002, sustaining falls of approximately 15 feet. They sought to file late notices of claim based on alleged incapacitation and the District's actual knowledge of the accident. The respondent District argued prejudice due to late notice and a subsequent insurance disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no abuse of discretion as the District had actual notice of the essential facts, and the insurance disclaimer was attributed to the District Superintendent's failure, not the petitioners' delay.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjurySchool District LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall AccidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceInsurance Disclaimer
References
5
Case No. ADJ5814563
Regular
Nov 19, 2012

MARIA VILLEGAS vs. BURKE WILLIAMS, INC., TRAVELERS SACRAMENTO

The Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Reconsideration as untimely, unverified, and unserved. The Board also initiated removal and a notice of intention to impose a $250 sanction against the lien claimant and its representative for frivolous conduct, including filing a petition with willful misrepresentations of the record. The lien claimant failed to appear at a lien conference, leading to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, which formed the basis of the dismissed petition. The Board found the lien claimant's assertion of lack of notice contradicted the record, which showed service of the conference notice.

Notice of Intention to Dismiss LienPetition for ReconsiderationLien claimantRemovalSanctionsLabor Code § 5813Due processVerificationServiceUntimely
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,136 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