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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1999

Capstead Mortgage Corp. v. Sun America Mortgage Corp.

Capstead Mortgage Corporation challenged a summary judgment ruling which denied its claims against Sun America Mortgage Corporation. Capstead had purchased mortgage loans from Sun America, including one where Kadeem Omari defaulted, leading Capstead to demand repurchase and subsequently foreclose on the property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sun America based on the doctrine of election of remedies. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Capstead's action of bidding the entire balance at the foreclosure sale and taking title to the property constituted an election of remedies. Furthermore, the court found that the mortgage loan ceased to exist upon foreclosure, thus extinguishing Sun America's warranties and representations.

Summary JudgmentElection of RemediesMortgage LoanForeclosureBreach of ContractWarrantiesAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureReal Estate LawContractual Agreements
References
18
Case No. 531567
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Yi Sun

Claimant Yi Sun appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from August 14, 2020, which denied her request to reopen two workers' compensation claims and seek an increase in benefits. Sun, a former jeweler technician and hotel housekeeper, had established claims in 2002 and 2008 for occupational bronchitis and work-related injuries, respectively, both resulting in permanent partial disabilities. She sought reclassification and emergency assistance due to worsened conditions and exhaustion of indemnity benefits. The Board denied her request, finding insufficient evidence of a material change in condition and untimely filing for an extreme hardship redetermination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the lack of medical documentation to support a change in her condition and her failure to meet the requirements for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3).

Reopening claimsPermanent partial disabilityWage-earning capacityIndemnity benefitsExtreme hardshipReclassificationWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate reviewMedical evidenceChange in condition
References
4
Case No. ADJ11721215
Regular
Mar 20, 2023

GLEN HODGES vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

This case concerns a firefighter's claim for melanoma under Labor Code section 3212.1, which presumes cancer is industrially caused. While the applicant raised the presumption through evidence of carcinogen exposure, the Appeals Board overturned the initial finding of industrial injury due to melanoma. The Board found the presumption was rebutted by expert medical opinion concluding the applicant's melanoma was not reasonably linked to industrial sun exposure, citing significant childhood sun exposure, tanning bed use, family history, and minimal workplace sun exposure to the affected area. The Board therefore granted reconsideration and amended the decision to exclude melanoma as an industrial injury, though actinic keratosis was still found to be industrially caused.

Labor Code section 3212.1cancer presumptionrebutted presumptionqualified medical evaluatorindustrial injuryactinic keratosismelanomafirefightercarcinogenInternational Agency for Research on Cancer
References
3
Case No. M2005-00280-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2006

Henry Kent Sudberry v. Royal & Sun Alliance

Henry Kent Sudberry sued Royal & Sun Alliance, Investigations and Intelligence Services, Inc., and other defendants for alleged tortious interference with his employment at Nissan, retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, and related torts, following his termination. The central legal issue was determining the applicable statute of limitations: a one-year period for personal injury or a three-year period for property damage. Sudberry asserted he had an express or implied contract for continued employment, thus characterizing his job loss as an injury to property. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the trial court's dismissal, ruling that claims premised on a contract for continued employment would fall under the three-year statute of limitations for property damage, allowing those specific aspects of his claims to proceed.

Statute of LimitationsEmployment LawTortious InterferenceRetaliatory DischargeContractual RightsWorkers' Compensation ClaimProperty DamagePersonal InjuryAt-will EmploymentImplied Contract
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sun Fab Industrial Contracting, Inc. v. Eric Lujan

The case involves an employer, Sun Fab Industrial Contracting, Inc., appealing the denial of its motion to compel arbitration in an employee-discrimination lawsuit filed by former employee Eric Lujan. Lujan alleged wrongful termination after filing a worker's compensation claim. The core dispute was whether the arbitration agreement, though included in an employee handbook that allowed for modification, was a separate, enforceable contract. The trial court initially denied arbitration, finding the agreement illusory due to the employer's right to unilaterally modify the handbook. On appeal, the court referenced *In re 24R, Inc.*, concluding that the arbitration agreement was a stand-alone document supported by mutual consideration and not subject to the handbook's modification clause. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationWorker's Compensation ClaimTexas LawContract EnforceabilityIllusory PromiseInterlocutory AppealEmployee HandbookFederal Arbitration ActMotion to Compel Arbitration
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00226
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of Yi Sun v. State Ins. Fund

Claimant Yi Sun appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision from August 14, 2020. The Board had denied her request to reopen two prior workers' compensation claims, citing insufficient evidence of a material change in her condition warranting reclassification and an untimely request for an extreme hardship redetermination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion. The court noted the absence of medical reports to support her claim of worsened conditions. Additionally, her request for extreme hardship redetermination was outside the statutory timeframe and she did not meet the necessary threshold of a greater than 75% loss of wage-earning capacity.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReclassificationExtreme HardshipIndemnity BenefitsWage-Earning CapacityAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewMaterial Change in ConditionOccupational Bronchitis
References
4
Case No. 05-14-00257-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2015

Sun Tec Computer, Inc. v. the Recovar Group, LLC, Tax Debt Acquisition Company, LLC

This document is a post-submission letter brief filed by Appellee Tax Debt Acquisition Company, LLC (TDAC) in response to Appellants' (Sun Tec Computer Inc., et al.) post-submission brief. TDAC argues that Appellants raised two new arguments that were not presented in their initial brief, thereby waiving them. Even if considered, TDAC asserts that these arguments—concerning a motion to consolidate that was never ruled upon and the application of Section 64.052 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code to authorize a collateral attack on a turnover order and receiver's sale—do not change the fact that the trial court's judgment should be affirmed. TDAC contends that Appellants are pursuing relief in the wrong case and that the judgment should be upheld.

Post-Submission BriefWaiver of ArgumentMotion to ConsolidateTrial Court JudgmentAffirmation of JudgmentCollateral AttackTurnover OrderReceiver's SaleTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koch Industries, Inc. v. Sun Co.

The case involves a complaint filed by Koch Industries against Sun Company regarding the sale of a refinery and related assets in Corpus Christi in 1981. Count I of the complaint concerns the transfer of an employee pension plan and its funding. Koch argued that Sun was obligated to pay interest on funds transferred after the closing date, based on the contract's "present value" and "as of closing date" language. Sun contended that the contract did not explicitly require interest. The court found that the contract's language was unambiguous, defining the funding amount as the "present value as of the closing date," irrespective of the actual transfer date. Therefore, the court concluded that Sun was not obligated to pay additional interest and dismissed Count I of the complaint in favor of the defendants.

Pension FundingAcquisition AgreementContract InterpretationDefined Benefit PlanPresent ValueClosing DateInterest ObligationEmployee BenefitsActuarial AssumptionsTexas Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ9510323
Regular
Mar 02, 2018

JONATHON SCOTT MCCARTNEY vs. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CONTRACTS, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

This case involves Jonathon Scott McCartney's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to actinic keratosis. The Administrative Law Judge initially denied the claim, finding insufficient evidence of industrial causation, despite McCartney's significant sun exposure as a deputy sheriff. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that McCartney's cumulative sun exposure during employment was a contributing proximate cause of his condition. Relying on *South Coast Framing, Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, the Board held that employment only needs to be a contributing factor, not the sole or primary cause, for an injury to be deemed industrial.

Actinic keratosisDeputy SheriffCumulative traumaIndustrial causationContributing proximate causeSouth Coast FramingPanel Qualified Medical EvaluatorMedical causationSun exposureWork-related injury
References
9
Case No. 02-09-00025-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2011

Metro A, LLC, Sun Holdings, LLC, POP Restaurants, LLC, Golden Restaurants, Inc., Firebrand Properties, LP, Corral Group, LP, Kansas Corral, LLC, Sunny Corral Management, LLC, Guillermo Perales, Frys Management, LLC v. Jessica Polley

This is an appeal from a default judgment against Appellants (Metro A, LLC, Sun Holdings, LLC, and others) and in favor of Appellee Jessica Polley. Polley had previously sued Metro Restaurants, LLC for sexual assault by an employee. In a later lawsuit, Polley sued the Appellants, alleging they were jointly and severally liable for Metro Restaurants' negligence and engaged in fraudulent transfers to prevent her from collecting a 2007 judgment against Metro Restaurants. Appellants appeal the default judgment on several grounds, including improper service, insufficient pleading, lack of evidence, and lack of notice for the default proceeding. They also challenge the denial of their motion for new trial, citing a calendaring mistake and a belief that a bankruptcy stay applied. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding Appellants judicially admitted proper service, Polley's pleading was sufficient, and Appellants' excuses for not filing an answer were not credible.

Default judgmentAppealService of processMeritorious defenseCraddock factorsJudicial admissionNegligenceJoint and several liabilityBankruptcy stayCalendaring error
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 971 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