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. 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. 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. ADJ7369071
Regular
Dec 10, 2015

JOHN MOCK (Deceased) vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

In this workers' compensation case, the applicant's estate is represented. The lien claimant, California Psychiatric Evaluators, Inc., sought reconsideration of an administrative law judge's finding that their medical report was untimely under Labor Code section 139.2(j) and related regulations. Consequently, the defendant was excused from paying the lien claimant. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report. Adopting the WCJ's reasoning, the WCAB affirmed the original decision, upholding that the lien claimant's report was indeed untimely and the defendant is not liable for payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 139.2(j)California Code of Regulations Title 8 Section 38(a)TimelinessMedical ReportWCJAffirm
References
0
Case No. ADJ7643460
Regular
May 01, 2017

Tracy Lee vs. XCHANGING, GRANITE STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns Defendant's Petition for Removal seeking a new Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panel due to a QME's untimely supplemental report. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding Defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. While the QME's report was late, Labor Code Section 4062.5 and Rule 31.5(a)(12) do not mandate replacement for untimely supplemental reports, making the decision discretionary. The WCJ's decision not to order a replacement was reasonable given the QME's extensive involvement and the lack of a mandatory replacement provision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelsupplemental reportuntimelysubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmLabor Code section 4062.5Rule 31.5(a)(12)
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gabak v. New Venture Gear

The claimant sustained a left knee injury, and an independent medical examination (IME) in August 2003 concluded no ongoing work-related disability. Subsequently, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) suspended benefits and later precluded the IME report due to untimely filing. The WCLJ also granted the employer's request to cross-examine the treating physician and ordered continued payments. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, which the appellate court further affirmed. The appellate court found that the faxed IME report on August 11, 2003, did not substantially comply with filing requirements, and the official report with IME-4 form was received untimely on August 21, 2003. It also ruled that the doctrine of laches did not apply, upholding the order for continued payments.

Independent Medical ExaminationTimely FilingWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Evidence PreclusionLaches DoctrineCausalityContinuing DisabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 137NYCRR 300.2 Filing Requirements
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

University of Houston v. Barth

Stephen Barth, a tenured professor at the University of Houston, sued the University under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation after he reported financial misconduct by the college dean, Alan Stutts. A jury found in favor of Barth, awarding him damages and attorney's fees. The University appealed, raising issues of jurisdiction due to untimely grievances and sufficiency of evidence for Barth's good faith report and causation. The appellate court found Barth's March 10, 2000 grievance untimely, stripping the trial court of jurisdiction over related claims. However, his August 17, 2000 grievance, regarding his 2000 evaluation, was deemed timely. The court also affirmed the legal sufficiency of evidence for causation and Barth's report regarding state contract law. Consequently, the judgment was reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to the timely claims.

Whistleblower ActRetaliationAdverse Employment ActionGrievance ProcedureTimelinessJurisdictionLegal SufficiencyCausationDisparate TreatmentGovernment Contracts
References
26
Case No. ADJ1456820
Regular
Oct 30, 2008

JEFFREY TERRA vs. FRU-CON CONSTRUCTION, ZURICH SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Jeffrey Terra's petition for disqualification of the administrative law judge. The Board found the petition untimely filed and adopted the judge's report, which concluded that no bias or prejudice was demonstrated. The judge's actions, including ordering further testing for the applicant's claims, were consistent with her duties to prepare parties for trial.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJPeremptory ChallengeMandatory Settlement ConferenceExpedited HearingAgreed Medical EvaluatorTesticular InjuryPsychiatric InjuryLow Back Injury
References
0
Case No. 91-CV-689A
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1994

Frank v. New York State Electric & Gas

Plaintiff, while incarcerated, filed a pro se action alleging racial discrimination by New York State Electric and Gas Corporation (NYSEG) under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following his employment termination. He also claimed breach of duty of fair representation by his union, Local No. 966 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Systems Council U-7 (IBEW). Magistrate Judge Heckman recommended granting summary judgment to the defendants, finding the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for the Title VII claim, and the § 1981 and fair representation claims were untimely or lacked evidentiary support for discrimination. District Judge Arcara adopted the Report and Recommendation, thereby granting the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissing the case in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Duty of Fair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsAdministrative ExhaustionPro Se LitigantRacial DiscriminationWorkers' Rights
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 7,701 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