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. ADJ8139408
Regular
Jul 30, 2013

MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ vs. ARAMARK CLEAN ROOM SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a Petition for Removal filed by defendant Aramark Clean Room Services. The Board denied the petition, upholding the judge's decision to take an expedited hearing off calendar. The denial was based on defense counsel's failure to identify the correct employer, which was a prerequisite for addressing issues like Medical Provider Network disputes. The Board emphasized that parties have an affirmative duty to identify the responsible entity early in litigation and that inaccurate stipulations cannot be blindly accepted.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardARAMARK CLEAN ROOM SERVICESACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANYSEDGWICK CMSADJ8139408Los Angeles District OfficeRule 10550(a)identity of employersubstantial prejudice
References
2
Case No. 03-14-00372-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2015

Elizabeth A. White v. Clean Slate Service, Inc. D/B/A Servpro of North Austin

Appellant Elizabeth A. White filed suit for damages against Appellee Clean Slate Services, Inc. d/b/a Servpro of North Central Austin for alleged breach of contract related to water removal services. Appellant obtained a default judgment against Appellee, first for liability and then for damages totaling $4,850,000.00. Appellee filed a timely motion for new trial, asserting lack of service, which the trial court granted. Appellant then appealed the granting of the new trial. Appellee argues that the appellate court lacks jurisdiction because the order granting a new trial is not a final judgment, and alternatively, that the record contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court's decision.

Default JudgmentMotion for New TrialAppellate JurisdictionImproper ServiceBreach of ContractDamagesTrial Court Plenary PowerTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewVacate Judgment
References
5
Case No. 2023-07-5733
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2025

Reeves, Octaivian v. Aramark Services, Inc.

The petitioner, Octaivian D. Reeves, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Aramark Services, Inc. Reeves, an incarcerated individual, alleged physical and mental injuries from an assault while working in a prison kitchen and filed a petition for benefit determination nearly four years after the incident. The trial court initially found that Reeves was not an employee of Aramark. On appeal, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the summary judgment, but on the grounds that Reeves’s claim was time-barred. The Board determined that the petition was filed more than three years after the alleged injury, exceeding the one-year statute of limitations when no benefits had been paid, and noted the petitioner's failure to adequately respond to the summary judgment motion.

Summary judgmentStatute of limitationsIncarcerated workerEmployment relationshipWorkers' compensationAppeals BoardPro se petitionerDue processTimelinessAffirmation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union v. Bradley Cleaning Contractors, Inc.

This case involves Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (Union) petitioning to confirm an arbitration award against Bradley Cleaning Contractors, Inc. (Bradley). Bradley sought to vacate, remand, or stay the award's enforcement, arguing for deference to a pending NLRB unit clarification petition. The court, noting the NLRB's decision not to intervene, proceeded to address the merits. It found Bradley's challenges to the arbitrator's award, concerning damages for a period prior to the 1981 agreement and inclusion of pension and welfare fund contributions, to be meritless. The court concluded the arbitrator acted within the scope of the collective bargaining agreement, and therefore confirmed the award. Enforcement was stayed for ten days to allow Bradley to arrange collateral.

Arbitration AwardUnion DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActNLRB JurisdictionStay of EnforcementCollateral RequirementJudicial ReviewArbitration Confirmation
References
6
Case No. 13-01-410-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2003

Rose Tristan, Individually and D/B/A Rose Cleaning Services and Olga Cristan v. C.A. Walker, Inc. and Any Unknown Individuals

Rose Tristan, individually and d/b/a Rose Cleaning Services, and Olga Cristan sued C.A. Walker, Inc. for various claims including breach of contract, fraud, and defamation. A jury found in favor of Tristan on her breach-of-contract and fraud claims but against Tristan and Cristan on their defamation claims. The trial court's judgment reflected these findings, awarding damages and attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the awards for breach of contract and fraud, reversed the award for attorney fees due to lack of agreement in the record, and affirmed the take-nothing judgment on the defamation claims.

Breach of ContractFraudDefamation ClaimsAttorney Fees AwardAppellate ReviewDamages CalculationElection of RemediesLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyJury Verdict
References
25
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. 03-03-00515-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2004

USA Waste Services of Houston, Inc. v. Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts of the State of Texas, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas

USA Waste Services of Houston, Inc. (USA) appealed a summary judgment ruling in a tax protest suit. USA sought a sales tax refund for steam cleaning services it purchased after spilling waste on customer properties, claiming eligibility under the sale-for-resale exemption. The Comptroller argued these services were not essential to USA's primary waste removal service. The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that USA failed to prove the steam cleaning was an integral part of its service, thus denying the refund claim.

Tax ProtestSales TaxSale for Resale ExemptionSummary JudgmentStatutory ConstructionAdministrative LawWaste Removal ServicesTravis CountyTexas Court of AppealsComptroller of Public Accounts
References
27
Case No. 03-10-00709-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Green Tree Servicing, LLC, as Authorized Servicing Agent for Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation v. Travis County

Green Tree Servicing, LLC appealed a post-answer default judgment concerning ad valorem taxes on mobile homes. The original suit was filed by Travis County and other entities against Conseco Finance Servicing Corporation, later substituted with Green Tree. Green Tree failed to appear at trial, resulting in a default judgment. Green Tree filed a motion for new trial, asserting its failure to appear was due to an accident or mistake (attorney transition) and that it had a meritorious defense, arguing that as a repossessing lienholder and not an owner, it was not liable for the taxes under Texas Tax Code Ann. § 32.07. The appellate court applied the Craddock test and found that Green Tree satisfied all three elements. The court adopted the interpretation that a repossessing lienholder is not considered an 'owner' under the tax code. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Post-answer default judgmentAd valorem taxesMobile homesLienholder liabilityProperty ownershipMeritorious defenseCraddock testNew trialStatutory interpretationTexas Tax Code
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

USA Waste Services of Houston, Inc. v. Strayhorn

In this tax protest suit, USA Waste Services of Houston, Inc. appealed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Carole Keeton Strayhorn, Comptroller of Public Accounts, and Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas. USA sought a sales tax refund under the sale-for-resale exemption for steam cleaning services it purchased after spilling waste on customers’ property. The district court granted the Comptroller’s motion for summary judgment and denied USA’s motion. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment, concluding that USA failed to demonstrate that the steam cleaning was an integral part of its waste removal service, as it was ordered only after customer complaints and not as an essential, re-billed service or an integral part of their existing contracts.

Sales TaxTax ExemptionSale-for-ResaleStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentWaste RemovalSteam Cleaning ServicesAppellate ReviewTexas Tax CodeComptroller of Public Accounts
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 9,248 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