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. ADJ3533713
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

JUANA LOPEZ vs. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removed this matter for the purpose of imposing sanctions. The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration filed by SIR Practice Solutions, LLC on behalf of several lien claimants was skeletal, unintelligible, and violated multiple WCAB rules regarding evidentiary and legal support. The lien claimants and SIR Practice Solutions, LLC failed to object to the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions within the allotted time. Therefore, the WCAB imposed sanctions of $250.00 against each individual lien claimant and found SIR Practice Solutions, LLC jointly and severally liable for these sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLien ClaimantsSIR Practice SolutionsPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rule 10846Labor Code Section 5813Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions
References
6
Case No. 01-04-01088-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

Universal Computer Consulting, Ltd. Universal Computer Services, Inc. And Dealer Computer Services, Inc. v. Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc. ADP, Inc., Business Solutions, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., and SMC Luxury Cars, Inc.

This trade secrets case involves Appellants Universal Computer Systems, Inc. (UCS) and Appellees Dealer Solutions, L.L.C., Dealer Solutions Holdings, Inc., ADP, Inc., SMC Investment, Inc., Southwest Toyota, Inc., SMC Luxury Cars, Inc., and Business Solutions, Inc. (collectively DSI). The parties had a dispute regarding trade secret misappropriation and a breach of a license agreement, which they agreed to arbitrate. The trial court confirmed the arbitrators' decision, which UCS appealed, alleging improper discovery orders and 'gross mistakes' by the arbitrators. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's confirmation, finding that any error in the trial court's discovery order was ameliorated by the arbitrators' full consideration of evidence, and that UCS failed to demonstrate gross mistake in the arbitration decision.

Trade secretsArbitrationDiscovery sanctionsArbitration awardCopyright preemptionSoftware licensingConfidentiality agreementBreach of contractGross mistakeTexas General Arbitration Act
References
21
Case No. 05-18-00188-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2019

Global Supply Chain Solutions, LLC v. Riverwood Solutions, Inc., and Lori Austin

This case involves a dispute between Global Supply Chain Solutions, LLC (Global Supply) and Riverwood Solutions, Inc. (Riverwood) and Lori Austin. After failed merger talks, Global Supply sued Riverwood for breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and tortious interference, also seeking injunctive relief against Austin. Key issues included whether Austin was an employee or independent contractor, if Riverwood breached non-solicitation clauses, and the application of the 'inevitable disclosure' doctrine for trade secrets. The trial court granted summary judgment for Riverwood and Austin and struck Global Supply's expert witnesses. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding no reversible error in the summary judgment rulings or the striking of expert witnesses, and upheld the award of attorney's fees to Austin.

Breach of ContractTrade Secrets MisappropriationTortious InterferenceIndependent ContractorNon-Solicitation AgreementSummary JudgmentExpert Witness TestimonyInevitable Disclosure DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
30
Case No. ADJ1761179 (LBO 0351115), ADJ3800791, ADJ2478410
Regular
Mar 21, 2013

MARIA MELENDEZ vs. KELERMEYER BUILDING SERVICES, INC.; REHAB SOLUTIONS aka NORTH AMERICAN DISTRIBUTORS

This case involves a lien claimant, Rehab Solutions, whose lien was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) due to non-appearance at a lien conference and failure to respond to a Notice of Intention to Dismiss. Rehab Solutions petitioned for reconsideration, arguing they received neither notice nor an opportunity to be heard. The WCJ's report, adopted by the WCAB, found that Rehab Solutions was properly noticed for the lien conference and later received a Notice of Intention to Dismiss, but failed to appear or respond for approximately 90 days. Consequently, the WCAB denied the Petition for Reconsideration, though they admonished the lien claimant that further frivolous filings would result in sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWCJLien ClaimantOrder Dismissing LienDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLien ConferenceNotice of HearingNotice of Intention to Dismiss LienProof of Service
References
0
Case No. 02-25-00220-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2025

1 Solar Solution, LLC and Mohammad Ali Samana v. S&A Wholesale Inc., D.B.A. Trendy Energy Solutions and Trendy Communications

Appellee S&A Wholesale Inc., d/b/a Trendy Energy Solutions and Trendy Communications (Trendy), obtained a default judgment against Appellants 1 Solar Solution, LLC and Mohammad Ali Samana. Appellants argued that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to set aside the default judgment, claiming they satisfied the Craddock factors. The trial court denied their motion. The appellate court reviewed the denial of the new-trial motion for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the appellants' explanation for failing to answer did not negate conscious indifference.

Default JudgmentCraddock FactorsMotion for New TrialAbuse of DiscretionConscious IndifferenceAccident or MistakeAppellate ReviewTexas Civil ProcedureFailure to AppearLegal Representation
References
23
Case No. 07-12-00328-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2014

Janet Bontke, Individually and as Guardian of the Estate and Person of Nolan Bontke, a Ward v. Cargill Meat Logistics Solution, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation and Tulia Feed Lot, Inc.

Janet Bontke, individually and as guardian of Nolan Bontke, appealed a trial court judgment denying recovery against Cargill Meat Logistics Solution, Inc., Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation, and Tulia Feed Lot, Inc. Nolan Bontke, an independent contractor, sustained injuries while loading a steer at Tulia Feed Lot when he was struck by an agitated animal. The appeal raised issues concerning references to insurance, the exclusion of a rebuttal expert witness, the classification of cattle handling as inherently dangerous, and the factual sufficiency of the jury's negligence findings. The appellate court overruled all of Bontke's issues and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

negligenceindependent contractorcattle handlinginherently dangerous activityevidence admissionexpert witness exclusionfactual sufficiencyappealTexaspersonal injury
References
26
Case No. 08-06-00153-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2008

David J. Quick v. Plastics Solutions of Texas, Inc., a Texas Corporation Plastics Solutions Molding, Inc., a Texas Corporation Kurt H. Ruppman, Sr., Individually and Fairfield Enterprises, Inc.

Appellant David J. Quick appealed a take-nothing judgment concerning contract claims against Plastic Solutions of Texas, Inc., Plastic Solutions Molding, Inc., Kurt H. Ruppman, Sr., and Fairfield Enterprises, Inc. Quick, a certified public accountant, sought royalties based on an agreement related to Ruppman's patented cryogenic technology. The trial court interpreted the "Royalty Revenue Agreement" to limit Quick's interest to licensing income derived from a specific heat-set/barrier blow molding technology process after January 23, 1997, and found no such income. The court also concluded that Quick's breach of contract claim was barred by failure of consideration and prior material breach due to his cessation of services. The Eighth District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment on all issues, including the contract interpretation and the award of attorney's fees to Fairfield.

Contract lawRoyalty agreementBreach of contractDeclaratory judgmentFailure of considerationPrior material breachAttorney's feesAppellate reviewContract interpretationPatent licensing
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2006

Quick v. Plastic Solutions of Texas, Inc.

David J. Quick appealed a take-nothing judgment concerning his contract claims against Plastic Solutions of Texas, Inc. (PST), Plastic Solutions Molding, Inc. (PSMI), Kurt H. Ruppman, Sr., and Fairfield Enterprises, Inc. Quick, a certified public accountant, contended he was owed a 3% royalty from a 1997 'Royalty Revenue Agreement' based on 'Net Royalty Income Revenue.' The core dispute involved the interpretation of this term: Quick argued it included manufacturing income, while the defendants asserted it was limited to licensing income from a specific cryogenic technology. The trial court found the agreement ambiguous and ruled in favor of the defendants, concluding the royalty was restricted to licensing income from the specific technology, and no such income was received. Additionally, Quick's breach of contract claim was barred due to failure of consideration and his prior material breach by ceasing to provide services. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on all grounds, including the award of attorney's fees to Fairfield.

Contract DisputeRoyalty AgreementLicensing IncomeManufacturing IncomeCryogenic TechnologyPatent RightsBreach of ContractFailure of ConsiderationDeclaratory JudgmentAttorney's Fees
References
48
Case No. 05-21-00466-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2022

NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC v. ESI/Employee Solutions, LP

This case involves an appeal regarding the enforceability of an indemnity agreement between NCH Corporation and RPG Innovations, LLC (appellants) and ESI/Employee Solutions, LP and Employee Solutions Arlington, LLC (appellees). The dispute arose after an employee, Timothy Price, assigned by ES Arlington to RPG, suffered severe injuries while operating a forklift without proper certification. Price sued ES Arlington for negligence. Appellees sought indemnification from appellants based on their staffing agreement. The trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, ordering appellants to indemnify them. However, the appellate court reversed, finding that the indemnity provision did not meet the express negligence test because appellees were seeking indemnification for their own alleged negligence. The court rendered judgment for appellants regarding attorney's fees and costs incurred in Price's lawsuit and remanded the remaining indemnification claims to the trial court.

Indemnity AgreementExpress Negligence TestSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation PolicyForklift AccidentStaffing AgreementNegligence ClaimsAttorney's FeesContractual IndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. M2018-02028-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2019

E Solutions For Buildings, LLC v. Knestrick Contractor, Inc.

This case addresses multifaceted payment disputes in a Tennessee public construction project, originating from claims by an equipment supplier (E Solutions) and a subcontractor (Air Comfort) against the general contractor (Knestrick) and its surety (Berkley). The Court of Appeals found that Knestrick improperly assessed liquidated damages against Air Comfort due to its own project delays, leading to an increased judgment for Air Comfort. The court also augmented E Solutions' judgment against Air Comfort, ruling against the trial court's deduction based on liquidated damages. Furthermore, the appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees and prejudgment interest for Air Comfort and for E Solutions' bond claim, remanding the case for recalculation and further proceedings.

Construction LawContract DisputesAppellate Court DecisionSubcontractor PaymentGeneral Contractor DefensesStatutory InterpretationAttorneys Fees AwardPrejudgment Interest CalculationPayment Bond ClaimsDelay Damages
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 3,632 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