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. 01-18-00242-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2019

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Nephrology Leaders and Associates and M. Atiq Dada, M.D. (collectively, "Nephrology") appealed a trial court's order that temporarily sealed certain documents from a subpoena issued to American Renal Associates, LLC. Nephrology argued the trial court abused its discretion by setting the motion for a hearing sua sponte and that evidence was insufficient to support the order. American Renal countered that Nephrology lacked standing to appeal. The Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas agreed, concluding that Nephrology had not demonstrated a redressable injury, which is a constitutional prerequisite for standing in Texas. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for want of subject-matter jurisdiction, affirming that statutory provisions cannot enlarge constitutional jurisdiction.

Appellate ProcedureSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingSealing OrderTemporary SealingDiscovery SubpoenaAbuse of DiscretionTrial Court OrderConstitutional StandingJudicial Review
References
27
Case No. ADJ7721471
Regular
Jun 18, 2012

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify that the applicant's basal cell carcinoma is not an insidious progressive disease, therefore jurisdiction cannot be reserved for future permanent disability beyond the statutory five-year limit. The Board amended the findings to state that the injury was to the applicant's nose, not all sun-exposed skin, and future basal cell carcinomas would be considered new injuries. This decision clarifies that the applicant's current award covers the injury to his nose, and any future skin cancers will require separate claims.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway PatrolState Compensation Insurance FundDaniel MurphyHighway Patrol Officerbasal cell carcinomainsidious progressive diseasereservation of jurisdictionLabor Code section 5804General Foundry Service v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Jackson)
References
8
Case No. ADJ7318651
Regular
Jan 12, 2012

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

This case concerns a police officer diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma who sought workers' compensation benefits under Labor Code section 3212.1's cancer presumption. The applicant presented evidence of industrial exposure to known carcinogens such as diesel exhaust and benzene. The defense failed to rebut the presumption by failing to present evidence that the primary cancer site was identified and that the identified carcinogen was not reasonably linked to the cancer. The Appeals Board affirmed the judge's findings, denying the defendant's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity of VernonJerry Chavez Jr.Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ruling and Awardcancer presumptionLabor Code section 3212.1industrial exposurecarcinogenic substancesWCJ
References
7
Case No. ADJ8218969
Regular
Feb 05, 2015

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a taken nothing order concerning the death claim of Jose Carrillo, who died of renal cell carcinoma. The initial decision found the widow failed to prove her husband's cancer was industrially caused by toxic exposure during his employment. The Board found the Qualified Medical Evaluator's opinion equivocal and the record insufficient to determine the extent of the decedent's exposure to carcinogens. Therefore, the case was returned to the trial judge for further development of the record regarding chemical exposure and a new determination of industrial causation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardElvira CarrilloJose CarrilloEsterline Technologies CorporationArch InsuranceESISADJ8218969Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ordertaken nothing order
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00070 [190 AD3d 1067]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2021

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

Wieslaw Sudnik appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied his claim for benefits, asserting kidney cancer was caused by exposure to toxins near the World Trade Center site after 9/11. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found a causal link, but the Board reversed, citing insufficient proof. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that the claimant's treating physician and an independent examiner failed to adequately establish a causal relationship between his employment near the World Trade Center and his renal cell carcinoma, especially considering his history of smoking and asbestos exposure. The court emphasized that the claimant did not meet his burden of proof with competent medical evidence, and therefore the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationCausationMedical EvidenceBurden of ProofRenal Cell CarcinomaAsbestos ExposureWorld Trade Center ExposureZadroga LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. ADJ8493192, ADJ8386046
Regular
Feb 05, 2016

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

This case involves applicant Hector Campos seeking reconsideration of a Findings and Award concerning cumulative injuries sustained while employed by Cell-Crete Corporation and Infrasource. The Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) found applicant sustained a curable injury at Cell-Crete but no injury at Infrasource. Applicant argued improper consolidation and need for further discovery, while Cell-Crete asserted a post-termination defense and challenged the WCJ's reliance on an Agreed Medical Evaluator's opinion. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petitions and answers, ultimately adopting the WCJ's report and denying reconsideration, affirming the original Findings and Award.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCell-Crete CorporationOld Republic General Insurance CorporationGallagher Bassett ServicesInc.InfrasourceOld Republic Insurance CompanyADJ8493192ADJ8386046Deputy Commissioner
References
2
Case No. 03-16-00510-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2016

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

Appellants, Steve F. Montoya, Jr., M.D., and his entities, appealed the dismissal of their claims against Kirk Brewer, M.D. and the summary judgment granted to San Angelo Community Medical Center (SACMC). Dr. Montoya alleged that Dr. Brewer, as Chief of Staff and head of a hospitalist group, conspired with SACMC to engage in anticompetitive actions, including a "whisper campaign" and manipulating patient referrals from the emergency room to favor hospital-affiliated physicians, thereby harming Dr. Montoya's nephrology practice. The lower court dismissed claims against Dr. Brewer under the Texas Citizens Participation Act and Rule 91a, subsequently granting summary judgment to SACMC. Appellants argue these dismissals were erroneous, asserting their claims are valid under Texas antitrust laws, they presented clear and specific evidence, SACMC has direct liability, and the court failed to consider their updated pleadings. Dr. Montoya seeks to reverse the dismissals, citing significant lost revenue estimated between $3,000,000 and $6,500,000 from lost long-term kidney dialysis patients.

AntitrustBusiness DisparagementDefamationTortious InterferenceMonopolizationGroup BoycottEMTALAPatient ReferralsHospitalist ServicesPhysician Privileges
References
49
Case No. ADJ8386046, ADJ8493192
Regular
Oct 13, 2015

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by both the applicant and the defendant, Cell-Crete, concerning a decision issued on July 22, 2015. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has granted reconsideration to allow for a more thorough review of the factual and legal issues presented. This decision is necessary to ensure a just and reasoned outcome after a complete understanding of the record. All further correspondence related to the petitions must be filed directly with the WCAB Commissioners' office.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONCELL-CRETE CORPORATIONOLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATIONGALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES INCINFRASOURCEADJ8386046ADJ8493192San Francisco District OfficeOPINION AND ORDER
References
0
Case No. 14-07-00925-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2009

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Latoya Basey appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in a disability discrimination and tort case against her former employer, DaVita, Inc., and potential employer, Fresenius Medical Care Holding, Inc. Basey claimed DaVita fired her after a work-related back injury and that Fresenius refused to hire her due to her injury and prior discrimination charge. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying grounds. The appellate court affirmed, finding Basey failed to provide evidence of disability for her discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims, and lacked evidence of causation for her retaliation claims.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationEmployment LawCausal LinkTexas Court of AppealsADAFailure to AccommodateEmployment Termination
References
11
Case No. ADJ402198 (RDG 0130045)
Regular
Dec 27, 2011

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

This case involves a firefighter's workers' compensation claim for squamous cell carcinoma. The key issue is whether the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. The majority affirmed the WCJ's finding that the applicant did not know, nor should have known, his disability was work-related until 2008 due to equivocal medical diagnoses. However, a dissenting opinion argues that by late 2004, the applicant was clearly diagnosed with cancer and understood the statutory presumption that firefighter cancers are work-related, thus making the claim untimely.

ADJ402198Squamous cell carcinomaStatute of limitationsOccupational diseaseDate of injuryReasonable diligenceFire DepartmentOtolaryngologistBiopsyRadiation oncologist
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 92 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