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. ADJ18302905
Regular
Jul 25, 2025

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

Defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings and Order (F&O) issued on April 15, 2025, by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ). The WCJ found that the applicant, Christian Chavez, sustained an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and that this injury was not barred by the going and coming rule, based on the special risk exception. Defendant contended that there was no evidence to support the application of the special risk exception. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition, applicant's answer, and the WCJ's report, ultimately denying the petition for reconsideration and concurring with the WCJ's findings regarding the special risk exception.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardChristian ChavezJetBlue Airways CorporationStarr Indemnity and Liability CompanyAdjudication Number ADJ18302905Los Angeles District OfficePetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderArising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE)Going and coming rule
References
12
Case No. ADJ7987695 ADJ7987686
Regular
May 08, 2014

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

The applicant, a licensed vocational nurse, sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained when she fell asleep driving home after working three extra hours off the clock due to a coworker's issue. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied her petition for reconsideration. The WCAB found the injury did not arise out of or occur in the course of employment, as the "going and coming rule" applied and neither the "special mission" nor "special risk" exceptions were met. The applicant's decision to stay late was voluntary, not at the employer's request, and falling asleep while driving is a common risk, not a special employment-related hazard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLicensed Vocational NurseSpecific InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjuryHeadachesCumulative InjurySleep DisorderGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission Exception
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

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

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. 13-12-00712-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2014

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

Juan Carlos Peña, an employee of the State Office of Risk Management (SORM), was severely injured in a single-vehicle accident while allegedly traveling to a mandatory seminar in Edinburg, Texas. His guardian, Arnold Peña, appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of SORM, which denied worker's compensation benefits. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether J.C. Peña was acting within the course and scope of his employment, considering exceptions to the 'coming and going' rule, specifically the special mission, paid travel, and dual purpose doctrines. The appellate court found that Arnold Peña presented more than a scintilla of evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact on these issues. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Worker's Compensation BenefitsCourse and Scope of EmploymentComing and Going RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionPaid Travel ExceptionDual Purpose DoctrineSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewTexas Labor CodeCar Accident Injury
References
12
Case No. 07-05-0268-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2006

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed the dismissal of its attempt to judicially review a Texas Worker’s Compensation Commission appeals panel ruling. The trial court had dismissed SORM's petition for lack of jurisdiction, asserting it was not timely filed within 30 days. SORM argued that the dispute concerned compensability, which allowed for a 40-day filing period under the Labor Code. The Court of Appeals determined that the core issue of identifying the responsible employer for death benefits, thereby defining the course and scope of employment, constituted a matter of compensability. Consequently, SORM had 40 days to file. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Worker's CompensationJudicial ReviewJurisdictionTimelinessCompensabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentDeath BenefitsTexas Labor CodeGovernment CodeAppeals Court
References
3
Case No. 03-98-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1999

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Risk Pool (Risk Pool) challenged the constitutionality of specific provisions within the Texas Workers' Compensation Act and related Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC) rules. These provisions mandated contributions to the Subsequent Injury Fund, which the Risk Pool argued violated constitutional restrictions on political subdivisions lending credit or granting public money, and imposing state ad valorem property taxes. The trial court initially sided with the Risk Pool, declaring the requirements unconstitutional as applied to its members. On appeal, the Court of Appeals addressed the Risk Pool's standing and the core constitutional arguments. The appellate court characterized the mandatory contributions as analogous to a custodial escheat statute, where the state assumes custody of unclaimed death benefits rather than gaining absolute ownership. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the Risk Pool failed to meet its burden for an "as applied" constitutional challenge, notably by not asserting a limitations defense.

Workers' Compensation ActSubsequent Injury FundDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeAs-Applied ChallengeAssociational StandingAcceptance of Benefits DoctrineEscheat LawCustodial EscheatUnclaimed Death Benefits
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Risk Management Strategies, Inc. (RMS) challenged the Texas Workforce Commission's (TWC) determination that caregivers for special needs trusts were employees of bank trusts, not RMS, for unemployment tax purposes. RMS pursued judicial review of this decision and filed ultra vires claims against the TWC Commissioners for alleged Texas Labor Code violations. The trial court dismissed the entire case based on sovereign immunity. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the judicial review claim, ruling that the statutory waiver of immunity applied only to unemployment benefits, not tax disputes. However, it reversed and remanded the dismissal of the ultra vires claims, allowing RMS to amend its petition to properly allege that the Commissioners acted without legal authority.

Unemployment TaxSovereign ImmunityJudicial ReviewUltra Vires ClaimTexas Labor CodeEmployer DefinitionIndependent ContractorCaregiversSpecial Needs TrustsTax Liability
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2008

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

Southwest Service Life Insurance Company and Regal Life of America Insurance Company initiated a declaratory-judgment action against the Texas Health Insurance Risk Pool, challenging their liability for certain assessments. The central legal question involved the interpretation of "other limited benefit coverage" under Texas Insurance Code Ann. § 1506.002(b)(7) to determine if the plaintiffs' policies were exempt from these assessments. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurance companies and awarded attorney's fees. On appeal, the court affirmed, concluding that the policies did fall under the statutory exception, rejecting the Pool's arguments for a narrower interpretation and finding the attorney's fee award appropriate.

Declaratory JudgmentStatutory ConstructionInsurance LawHealth InsuranceRisk PoolLimited Benefit CoverageSummary JudgmentAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewHIPAA
References
36
Case No. 07-07-0288-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2009

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

The State Office of Risk Management (SORM) appealed the trial court's dismissal of its lawsuit seeking judicial review of an appeals panel decision, which found SORM responsible for paying death benefits to the beneficiaries of deceased police officer Jose Herrera. Officer Herrera died in the line of duty, and SORM denied liability, arguing he was employed by the City of Friona, a self-insured entity, not the State. The trial court dismissed SORM's suit because SORM failed to timely name the City of Friona as a defendant within the statutory 40-day period. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the City of Friona was an indispensable party and the 40-day limitations period was not tolled for misidentification of parties. The court also upheld the award of attorney's fees to certain Herrera defendants, deeming SORM's claims against them to be without foundation.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilitySubject Matter JurisdictionIndispensable PartyAttorney's FeesStatutory BeneficiariesMisidentification of PartiesAppellate Court DecisionTexas Labor Law
References
20
Case No. 03-17-00352-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2018

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

This case involves cross-appeals stemming from a dispute over the appropriate reimbursement for medical services provided by Vista Medical Center Hospital and its affiliates to injured employees covered by the State Office of Risk Management (SORM) under Texas workers’ compensation statutes. The district court had affirmed 23 administrative orders that required SORM to make additional payments to Vista, a decision which SORM challenged on appeal citing insufficient evidence. Vista, in turn, cross-appealed the district court's denial of prejudgment interest. The appellate court found substantial evidence supported the administrative law judges' conclusion that SORM's original reimbursement model was unfair and unreasonable, and that Vista's proposed methodology was valid. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's judgment but modified it to include the prejudgment interest that Vista was statutorily entitled to.

Workers' CompensationMedical ReimbursementAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrejudgment InterestTexas LawHealthcare ProvidersInsurance DisputesFee Guidelines
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 4,701 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