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

Gentile v. Nulty

Police Officer Steven Gentile sued his employers, Kevin A. Nulty (Chief of Police) and the Town of Orangetown, alleging deprivation of rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York General Municipal Law § 207-c.l. Gentile claimed defendants continually denied him workers' compensation benefits in retaliation for previous legal actions to secure those benefits related to two work-related injuries: post-traumatic stress disorder and physical injuries. Defendants moved to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, arguing Gentile waived his rights by paying doctors directly and that they preserved their right to challenge liability. The court denied defendants' motions, finding Gentile had not waived his rights and defendants had not preserved their right to challenge liability, and stated an inclination to grant partial summary judgment to Gentile on the issue of liability.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsPolice Officer RightsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-c.lRetaliatory ActionsDue ProcessFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentWaiver of RightsSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Dismiss
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cardenas v. Continental Insurance Co.

Lillie Cardenas appealed a workers' compensation case after a district court rendered a take-nothing judgment against her following a jury trial. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission had determined her injury was not work-related and she lacked good cause for failing to provide timely notice. Cardenas contended that appellee Continental Insurance waived its right to complain that the injury was not work-related by failing to raise that issue in its notice of refused/disputed claim, and that the jury's consideration of the work-related injury issue tainted its finding on timely notice. The appellate court held that Cardenas herself waived her right to assert the waiver argument against Continental and that the submission of the first issue did not taint the jury's determination of the second issue. The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationInjury ClaimTimely NoticeWaiverJury TrialDistrict Court AppealTexas Labor CodeGood CauseScope of EmploymentInsurance Carrier
References
3
Case No. ADJ3887642 (MON 0244638) ADJ2350388 (MON 0241177)
Regular
Feb 04, 2010

MARION BARNES vs. JOHN RIORDAN PLUMBING, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior order finding that the defendant waived its claim for credit of overpaid temporary disability indemnity. This waiver occurred because the defendant failed to challenge a previous WCJ order from July 2009 that determined the issue had already been waived. The Board affirmed that the July 2009 order was a final order because it determined a substantive right of the parties. Therefore, the defendant could not relitigate this waived issue.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee Associationliquidationcovered claimscredit for overpaymenttemporary disability indemnitywaiverfinal ordersubstantive rightreconsideration
References
3
Case No. 08-20-00169-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Eduardo A. Jonson v. Long Duong and Remy Grousson

Eduardo A. Jonson appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to file an out-of-time amended petition and the dismissal of his lawsuit against Long Duong and Remy Grousson. Jonson, a pro se litigant, raised three issues on appeal: denial of his rights as a pro se litigant, the trial judge's failure to recuse herself, and the judges' failure to adequately perform their duties. The Court of Appeals found Jonson waived his first and third issues due to inadequate briefing. His second issue regarding recusal was also waived for not filing a timely motion. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that pro se litigants are not exempt from procedural rules and dissatisfaction with rulings does not establish bias for recusal.

Pro Se LitigantAppellate ReviewPleading DefectsSpecial ExceptionsMotion to DismissRecusal MotionJudicial BiasWaiver of IssuesProcedural RulesBusiness Partnership Dispute
References
23
Case No. 2-05-081-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2006

Eunice Alexander v. Lockheed Martin Corporation, Self Insured

Appellant Eunice Alexander appealed a summary judgment ruling that Appellee Lockheed Martin Corporation did not waive its right to contest compensability and that Alexander did not have a compensable claim. Alexander argued that Lockheed Martin waived its right to contest compensability by not doing so within the statutory sixty-day period, as per Texas Labor Code section 409.021(c). The court examined the applicability of *Continental Casualty Company v. Williamson*, distinguishing it from the current case as *Williamson* applied to situations of no injury, whereas here an injury was found but not in the course of employment. The appellate court agreed with Alexander, holding that Lockheed Martin waived its right to contest compensability because the issue was whether the injury was in the course and scope of employment, which is a compensability issue, not the existence of an injury itself. The trial court's summary judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentWaiverCompensabilityTexas Labor CodeCourse and Scope of EmploymentPre-existing ConditionAppeals PanelSelf-InsuredRemand
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arbitration Between Halcot Navigation Limited Partnership and Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group

Halcot Navigation Limited Partnership (Halcot) sought to vacate a partial arbitration award from August 4, 2006, which allowed Anthony Radcliffe Steamship Company Limited (a non-signatory) to assert claims against Halcot in arbitration. Halcot argued that the arbitrability of the claim should be decided by the court, not the arbitrators. Respondents (Anthony Radcliffe and Stolt-Nielsen Transportation Group B.V.) cross-moved to confirm the award, contending Halcot waived its right to object by submitting the issue to arbitration. The court found that Halcot waived its right to independent review by actively participating and briefing the arbitrability issue before the arbitration panel. Even if there was no waiver, the court independently concluded that Anthony Radcliffe could compel arbitration based on equitable estoppel, as the issues were intertwined with the Time Charter agreement between Halcot and Stolt-Nielsen. Therefore, the court DENIED Halcot’s petition to vacate and GRANTED respondents’ motion to confirm the Arbitration Award.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardNew York ConventionFederal Arbitration ActArbitrabilityWaiver of RightsEquitable EstoppelNon-Signatory ArbitrationTime Charter Agreement
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bluitt v. Eval Co. of America, Inc.

Plaintiff Eartha L. Bluitt sued her former employer, Eval Company of America (EVALCA), under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), alleging wrongful termination. EVALCA moved for summary judgment, arguing Bluitt had waived her claims by signing a "Settlement Agreement and General Release" related to a prior Title VII sexual harassment lawsuit. The Court addressed whether FMLA rights could be waived, citing 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(d) which states employees cannot waive FMLA rights. Applying the Chevron analysis, the Court found that Congress had not directly spoken on the waiver issue in the FMLA, and section 105 of the FMLA provided support for the agency’s regulation. Therefore, the Court upheld the validity of the FMLA regulation prohibiting waivers, concluding that a genuine issue of fact existed regarding the waiver's validity, and denied EVALCA's motion for summary judgment.

FMLAWorker's CompensationSummary JudgmentWaiver of RightsEmployment LawRetaliationFederal QuestionBreach of ContractStatutory InterpretationChevron Deference
References
5
Case No. ADJ9040755
Regular
Apr 26, 2018

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. AREVALO LANDSCAPING SERVICE, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a lien claimant, Citywide Scanning Service, seeking reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finding that their services were valued at $\$2,091.61$. The lien claimant argued that the defendant waived objections by failing to submit timely explanations of review (EORs) and that their billing was supported by evidence, entitling them to penalties. The WCAB denied reconsideration, finding that the issue of timely EORs was waived as it was not raised at the initial trial. The only remaining issue for trial was the reasonable value of the services, and the WCAB upheld the administrative law judge's determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFinding and OrderExplanation of Review (EOR)Reasonableness and NecessityLachesPhotocopy ServicesCompromise and ReleaseLien Trial
References
1
Case No. ADJ2456257 (LAO 0856958)
Regular
Nov 07, 2013

JAVIER BANUELOS vs. JACK'S RESTAURANTS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a defendant seeking reconsideration of an award for 8 hours of daily home care services for the applicant, Javier Banuelos, based on an Agreed Medical Examiner's opinion. The defendant argued the award was improper due to a waived issue regarding a Utilization Review denial and improper reliance on the AME's reports. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the defendant waived the UR denial issue by raising it post-trial, and failed to argue against the substantial evidence provided by the AME. Therefore, the original Findings and Award for home care services were upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJavier BanuelosJack's RestaurantsState Compensation Insurance FundFindings and AwardHome Care ServicesAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)Dr. Rodney BluestoneUtilization Review (UR)Prescription Denial
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alexander v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Eunice Alexander appealed a summary judgment that found Lockheed Martin did not waive the right to contest her worker's compensation claim and that her claim was not compensable. Alexander fell at work in October 2002 and filed a worker's compensation claim. Lockheed Martin, a self-insured employer, did not contest compensability within the statutory 60-day period. The appellate court, referencing Texas Labor Code section 409.021(c) and case precedents, found that Lockheed Martin waived its right to contest compensability due to the untimely dispute. The court clarified that the initial CCH officer found an injury but not within the scope of employment, which is a compensability issue, not an issue of injury existence itself. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding Alexander had a compensable claim, and remanded for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentWaiver DoctrineCompensability DisputeLabor LawSelf-Insured EntityPre-existing Condition RelevanceCourse and Scope of EmploymentAppellate ProcedureRemand OrderTimeliness of Dispute
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 12,742 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