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. ADJ7249250
Regular
Jun 23, 2011

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration to allow them to file a supplemental pleading. This supplemental filing is permitted under California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 10848. The defendant must file this pleading within 10 days. The Board granted reconsideration specifically to review the facts and law relevant to the supplemental petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSupplemental PetitionCalifornia Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 10848WCJPermissibly Self-InsuredClougherty PackingFarmers JohnGuadalupe MedinaJames Scherer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Plaintiff Felicia Pickett Johnson, pro se, brought an action against her former employer, St. Barnabas Nursing Home, and co-worker, Ronald Granger, under Title VII, the ADA, and New York Human Rights Laws. Claims against Granger were dismissed without prejudice. St. Barnabas moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that Johnson's federal claims were time-barred because she failed to file within 90 days of receiving her EEOC right-to-sue letter. The court determined that Johnson's filing on February 7, 2008, was beyond the 90-day period, whether calculated from the presumptive receipt date of November 3, 2007, or her claimed receipt date of November 14, 2007 (or even November 8, 2008, based on a fax confirmation). Finding no extraordinary circumstances to warrant equitable tolling, the court dismissed the federal claims as time-barred and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Consequently, St. Barnabas's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Title VIIADAEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingRight-to-Sue LetterJudgment on the PleadingsSupplemental JurisdictionCivil Rights ActAmericans with Disabilities Act
References
8
Case No. 04-14-00483-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

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

Rowland J. Martin, the Appellant, filed a supplemental motion for rehearing, expedited judgment, and writ relief with the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourth District, Bexar County, on February 25, 2015. He seeks to enforce the Texas Citizen's Participation Act (TCPA) and alleges fraud on the court by Appellees Edward Bravenec and 1216 West Ave. Inc., facilitated by attorneys Bravenec and Deadman. Martin contends that the Appellees concealed a property transfer to Torralba Properties, LLC, which created a resulting trust and negated the Appellees' standing in the underlying tortious interference case. He requests the court to grant special exceptions, reverse the trial court's orders, and issue temporary injunctive relief, arguing that the Appellees' lawsuit is a sham and his recorded lis pendens constitutes protected speech under Anti-SLAPP laws. Martin emphasizes the importance of promptly adjudicating fraud on the court issues in interlocutory appeals to preserve judicial integrity and due process.

Anti-SLAPPFraud on the CourtSupplemental Motion for RehearingExpedited JudgmentWrit ReliefTexas Citizen's Participation ActInterlocutory AppealResulting TrustLis PendensTemporary Injunctive Relief
References
56
Case No. 01-17-00626-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

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

The appellants, Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton, and Anis Hussain, filed an unopposed motion for leave to file a Supplemental Reply Appeal Brief in the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. They seek permission to respond to a Supplemental Appeal Brief filed by the appellees, City of Sugar Land, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley, and Allen Bogard. The appellants argue that they are entitled to the last brief and that filing the supplemental brief would not interfere with the appeal's progress. They also state that the supplemental brief addresses a serious issue of subject matter jurisdiction concerning Article V, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. Counsel for the appellees, George A. Staples, confirmed that the appellees do not oppose this motion.

Appellate ProcedureMotion PracticeSupplemental BriefSubject Matter JurisdictionTexas ConstitutionArticle V Section 19Red Light Camera LawsExhaustion of RemediesSeparation of PowersUltra Vires Claim
References
12
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case concerns the City of Pasadena's request for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision regarding the applicant's occupational group number. The WCJ initially recommended dismissal of the reconsideration petition as untimely. However, the defendant has now requested leave to file a supplemental petition to address issues raised in the WCJ's report. The WCAB has granted the defendant's request to file this supplemental petition. The defendant is ordered to file the supplemental petition within 20 days, either by mail or via EAMS, to avoid rejection.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental PetitionReconsiderationOccupational Group NumberAdministrative Law JudgePetition for ReconsiderationWCAB Rule 10848Electronic Adjudication Management SystemEAMSCity of Pasadena
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

These consolidated actions address whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law tort claims stemming from a dispute over the educational rights of two children, Mary W. and Christy McD. The Magistrate Judge recommended declining supplemental jurisdiction, citing the lack of a common nucleus of operative facts between the federal claim (42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for enforcing administrative orders) and the state law tort claims, and the predominance of state law claims. District Judge Hannah conducted a de novo review, affirmed these findings, and adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, thereby overruling plaintiffs' objections and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state tort claims.

Supplemental JurisdictionState Law ClaimsTort ClaimsFederal ClaimsEducational RightsDisability LawSection 1983Magistrate Judge ReportDe Novo ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1971

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

This appeal concerns a decision by the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which ruled that a claimant widow was entitled to supplemental benefits without deducting social security benefits received from her own earnings. The employer and insurance carrier appealed this decision. The central issue was whether social security benefits, regardless of their source, should be offset against supplemental benefits under subdivision 9 of section 25-a of the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The court found that the statute's language explicitly requires such an offset, irrespective of the social security benefits' originating source. Therefore, the court reversed the Board's determination, remitting the matter for recalculation of the supplemental benefit.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security OffsetSupplemental AllowancesStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionBenefit ReductionLegislative HistoryClaimant WidowPublic PolicyBenefit Calculation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

This case involves an employment sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Kleehammer against Monroe County and Sheriff O'Flynn. Kleehammer alleges hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The hostile environment claim stemmed from a single incident involving a female visitor and a male inmate, and subsequent lewd comments by co-workers. Kleehammer also claimed retaliation for complaining about the hostile environment and for alleged denial of "Z time" leave. The Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the hostile environment and Equal Protection/Fourth Amendment claims due to insufficient pleading and lack of employer liability for co-worker conduct, but allowed the retaliation claims (Third and Fourth causes of action) to proceed. The Court cautioned Plaintiff's counsel regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for good faith pleading.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissJudgment on the PleadingsTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Human Rights LawSection 1983 ClaimPleading StandardsBell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

Appellant George Rodriguez appealed the trial court's refusal to award him attorney's fees against Appellee Ysleta Independent School District (YISD) in a Supplemental Income Benefits case. Rodriguez, injured in 1991, settled his claim for benefits with YISD after the Texas Worker’s Compensation Commission initially upheld YISD's denial. The dispute centered on whether an injured worker's attorney must plead for attorney's fees to recover them under the Worker's Compensation Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that attorney's fees are not recoverable from an opposing party unless statutorily or contractually provided, or specifically pleaded. As Rodriguez did not plead for the fees, and no statutory exception applied (since the Commission denied the benefits), the trial court lacked jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationAttorney's FeesPleading RequirementsSupplemental Income BenefitsStatutory InterpretationInjured WorkerEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewJurisdictionTexas Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

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

Twenty individual investors sued accountants Mahesh and Loma Agashiwala, alleging RICO violations and New York law claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty related to fraudulent real estate investments. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the RICO claims were time-barred and that fraud was not pleaded with particularity. The court granted the motion, dismissing the RICO claims as untimely because the four-year statute of limitations began in February 1990, well before the February 1995 lawsuit filing, and plaintiffs failed to adequately plead fraudulent concealment and due diligence. Additionally, the complaint lacked particularity in pleading fraud under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b). The supplemental state law claims were also dismissed as the federal claims were no longer active, and the dismissal was without prejudice, allowing for an amended complaint.

RICO ActSecurities FraudMail FraudStatute of LimitationsFraudulent ConcealmentDue DiligenceMotion to DismissPleading with Particularity (Rule 9(b))Supplemental JurisdictionReal Estate Investments
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 2,143 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