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

Eddins v. Excelsior Independent School District

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. 03-06-00002-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2007

Texas Court Reporters Certification Board and Michele Henricks, as Director of the Court Reporters Certification Board v. Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C.

The Texas Court Reporters Certification Board (Board) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Esquire Deposition Services, L.L.C. (Esquire) for alleged violations concerning long-term volume discount arrangements for court reporting services. Esquire subsequently filed suit against the Board and its director, Michele Henricks, challenging the Board's statutory authority to regulate or prohibit such discounts and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court denied the Board's plea to the jurisdiction, prompting an appeal. The Court of Appeals held that the Board possesses exclusive jurisdiction over disciplinary claims and determined that Esquire's claims, which broadly questioned the Board's general authority over long-term discounts, were not ripe for judicial review as they depended on contingent facts and agency expertise. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the district court's order, dismissing Esquire's suit due to lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative LawJurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionRipeness DoctrineExclusive JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationDeclaratory Judgment ActCourt Reporters Certification BoardCourt Reporting FirmsLong-term Volume Discounts
References
15
Case No. 05-15-00073-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2015

Estate of David Anthony Toarmina

This document is an 'Agreed Correction of Reporter’s Record' filed by Danyel Moffett, Appellant, and Vincent Toarmina, Appellee. The parties agree to correct the Reporter’s Record by including two exhibits, Def. Ex. 29 and Def. Ex. 30, which are Charles Vincent Toarmina’s Response to Request for Disclosure and Charles Vincent Toarmina’s First Supplemental Response to Request for Disclosure, respectively. These exhibits were admitted at trial but not included in the original record. The parties agree that these documents are true and correct copies and should be made part of the Reporter’s Record for all purposes.

Appellate ProcedureCorrection of RecordExhibitsDiscoveryTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureProbate CourtEstate LawDisclosure RequestAppellate Court FilingAgreement of Parties
References
7
Case No. ADJ9755370
Regular
Aug 10, 2017

BERNARDINO GARDEA vs. CITY OF PASADENA

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
Feb 21, 2006

Rivera v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Russell Rivera, Jr. challenged the Commissioner of Social Security's decision denying him Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Frank Maas, who issued a Report and Recommendation to remand the action for further administrative proceedings, citing deficiencies in the plaintiff's hearing. After defendant objected to a time limit, an Amended Report and Recommendation was issued, omitting the disputed time limitation. District Judge Richard J. Holwell, finding no clear error, adopted the Amended Report in its entirety, granting the Commissioner’s motion. The court's decision was based on the Administrative Law Judge's failure to fully develop the administrative record and adequately consider the treating physician’s opinion, Dr. Asbury, whose findings differed from a nonexamining medical consultant.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeDisability DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ) ReviewRemand OrderTreating Physician RuleMedical AssessmentHIV/AIDS ImpairmentHepatitis C DiagnosisProcedural Error
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1995

Miller v. Chater

Plaintiff initiated this action to seek review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' decision establishing June 1, 1992, as the onset date for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits due to alleged disability from mental retardation. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman issued a Report and Recommendation, advising denial of the Secretary's motion for judgment on the pleadings and remand for reconsideration. The Magistrate Judge found errors in the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) assessment of the plaintiff's functional limitations, particularly regarding social domain, and noted the ALJ's failure to consider the retroactivity inference from the Zebley class action stipulation. District Judge Arcara reviewed the Report and Recommendation, and with no objections filed, adopted its findings. Consequently, the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was denied, and the case was remanded to the Secretary for further reconsideration, emphasizing a misapplication of post-Zebley requirements for adjudicating children’s SSI benefits claims.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)Disability BenefitsMental RetardationChild Disability ClaimsAdministrative ReviewSocial Security ActAge-appropriate functioningMedical EvidenceFunctional LimitationsOnset Date
References
12
Case No. ADJ8691809
Regular
Apr 14, 2017

NICOLE BORAGNO vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CDCR - CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY CHOWCHILLA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND/STATE CONTRACT SERVICES

This case involves Nicole Boragno's workers' compensation claim against the State of California, CDCR. The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying the admission of a supplemental medical report. The WCAB denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the supplemental report inadmissible. This was because discovery had closed at the mandatory settlement conference, and the defendant failed to establish good cause for introducing evidence not previously disclosed. The WCJ noted there was no change in circumstances to warrant the late-filed report, distinguishing it from precedent that allows such reports.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for Reconsiderationmandatory settlement conferencediscovery closureLabor Code section 5502(d)(3)good causesupplemental reportPQMEapportionmenttimeliness
References
2
Case No. 15-0129
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2014

Baltasar D. Cruz v. James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman D/B/A Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen

This case involves a libel lawsuit filed by Baltasar D. Cruz against James Van Sickle, Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report (BOR), and Katherine Haenschen. The lawsuit stemmed from a statement in an article posted on the BOR website by Van Sickle regarding Cruz, who was a judicial candidate. The trial court initially granted the defendants' motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) and awarded attorney's fees to all defendants. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit and the award of attorney's fees to James Van Sickle. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the award of attorney's fees to Karl-Thomas Musselman d/b/a Burnt Orange Report and Katherine Haenschen, ruling that as they were represented pro bono, they did not 'incur' attorney's fees as required by the TCPA.

LibelDefamationTexas Citizens Participation ActAnti-SLAPPPro Bono RepresentationAttorney's FeesJudicial CandidatePublic OfficialFreedom of SpeechStatutory Interpretation
References
83
Case No. ADJ6704462
Regular
Sep 26, 2013

GÉRARDO ALVAREZ vs. SC ASSOCIATES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant's petition for removal challenging an order for supplemental medical reports. The Appeals Board denied removal, holding that the WCJ acted appropriately in allowing QME reports to be supplemented due to potential deficiencies in their adherence to regulations concerning the review of prior medical records and reporting of information considered. The Board found that the alleged non-compliance with specific procedural rules related to report preparation does not automatically render the reports inadmissible, and that further development of the record is permissible when no substantial evidence exists. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or substantial prejudice required for the extraordinary remedy of removal.

Petition for RemovalOrder Re Supplemental ReportsDr. Ronald ZlotolowDr. Noel LustigQME reportsLabor Code Section 4628WCAB Rule 10606medical-legal reportinadmissibilityprior medical records
References
4
Case No. ADJ1471935 (LAO 0872244)
Regular
Mar 26, 2014

JESUS RIOS vs. BRYAN JONES dba THE K GROUP, TOKIO MARINE, UNISURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to determine the admissibility of evidence obtained after the Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). The applicant sought to introduce supplemental medical reports from previously seen physicians and reports from new medical and vocational experts, arguing his condition worsened and the existing record was inadequate. The WCAB held that supplemental reports from the applicant's original physicians were admissible under Labor Code section 5502(d)(3) due to a changed condition, but reports from newly disclosed physicians and vocational experts were not. The majority affirmed the WCJ's decision to exclude the latter evidence, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause or due diligence in obtaining it prior to the MSC.

Mandatory Settlement Conferencediscovery closurereopen recordsupplemental medical reportsvocational expertdue diligencegood causepermanent and stationaryAMA Guidesloss of earnings capacity
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,702 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