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. WR No. 20,644
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Larson, Paul Allen

Paul Larson, acting pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Error/Bill of Review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Larson alleges errors appearing on the face of the record and extrinsic fraud committed by the State in connection with prior Cause Numbers 449008-C, 449008-D, 465007-C, and 465007-D. He specifically claims the State mislabeled a June 12, 2014, answer as 'Original' and intentionally delayed its delivery. Larson seeks a full review of the Habeas Record, an order for the Harris County District Clerk's Office to provide complete files, and for the Court to grant his Bill of Review and the relief originally sought in his Applications for Writ of Habeas Corpus and/or Writ of Mandamus.

Writ of ErrorBill of ReviewHabeas CorpusMandamusFraudError on RecordExtrinsic FraudTexas Court of Criminal AppealsPro SeSupervised Release
References
2
Case No. 02-14-00304-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2015

Barry Nussbaum v. Builders Bank, an Illinois Banking Corporation

This appeal arises from competing summary-judgment motions in a bill-of-review proceeding, focusing on whether a defendant's failure to update a contractually-agreed-to address for service of process constitutes fault or negligence precluding bill-of-review relief. Appellant Barry Nussbaum had guaranteed a loan from Appellee Builders Bank. When the borrower defaulted, Builders Bank sued Nussbaum for breach of the guaranty, obtaining a default judgment when Nussbaum failed to answer. Nussbaum filed a bill-of-review challenging the default judgment, claiming improper service. Builders Bank filed a cross-motion, arguing Nussbaum's own fault contributed to the default. The trial court denied Nussbaum's motion, granted Builders Bank's, and dismissed the bill-of-review. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Nussbaum's failure to update his address, as required by the guaranty, constituted fault or negligence, thereby precluding him from obtaining bill-of-review relief.

Bill of ReviewDefault JudgmentService of ProcessContractual WaiverDue ProcessSummary Judgment ReviewGuaranty AgreementFault and NegligenceAppellate CourtTexas Law
References
40
Case No. 03-01-00400-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2002

Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann v. City of Round Rock Round Rock Development Review Board Frank Del Castillo, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board Terry Hagood, in His Capacity as Member of the Round Rock Development Review Board

Appellants Richard Wallace Pearce and Jesse Ray Blann appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Round Rock Development Review Board's denial of their permit applications for seven outdoor advertising structures. The core issue was whether the structures qualified as 'signs' and were entitled to non-conforming use status under the City's ordinance, which became effective February 27, 1997. The Court of Appeals held that four of the structures were 'signs' due to having a surface capable of displaying text, despite not yet having advertising affixed, and were therefore entitled to non-conforming use. The court reversed and remanded the Board's decisions regarding these four structures. However, it affirmed the district court's judgment for the remaining three structures, which lacked such a surface, and also upheld the constitutionality of the City's sign ordinance against a takings claim.

ZoningOutdoor AdvertisingNon-conforming UsePermit DenialExtraterritorial JurisdictionAbuse of DiscretionStatutory InterpretationMunicipal OrdinanceTexas Court of AppealsProperty Rights
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Subsequent Injury Fund v. Service Lloyds Insurance Co.

The Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) appealed a summary judgment dismissing its equitable bill of review against Service Lloyds Insurance Company (Lloyds). Lloyds had sought to dismiss the SIF's bill of review, arguing that a writ of error was an available legal remedy. The trial court agreed, but the appellate court determined that a writ of error was not available to SIF because it was not a party to the underlying workers’ compensation suit between Lloyds and Darrell Tompkins, nor was it in privity with either party. The court found that SIF's bill of review was a proper collateral attack on a void judgment, as SIF was never made a party to the underlying suit. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the cause was remanded for further proceedings on SIF's bill of review.

Workers' CompensationSubsequent Injury FundEquitable Bill of ReviewWrit of ErrorSummary JudgmentVoid JudgmentCollateral AttackParty StatusPrivityVirtual Representation
References
28
Case No. ADJ7868976
Regular
May 02, 2018

JAMES BARRIOS vs. BUENA VISTA FOOD PRODUCTS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a judge's order requiring defendants to pay the balance of a lien claimant's bill. The primary dispute concerns the reasonable value of medical services under the Official Medical Fee Schedule (OMFS). Neither the lien claimant's testimony nor the defendant's bill review expert provided substantial evidence to establish the OMFS amount due. Therefore, the case is remanded for further proceedings to develop the record, potentially through an agreed bill reviewer or an appointed independent reviewer.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderCompromise and Releaselien claimantDr. Paynebill reviewofficial medical fee scheduleOMFSsubstantial evidenceindependent bill review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trendsetter HR, LLC v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (In re Trendsetter HR, LLC)

Trendsetter HR, LLC, Trend Personnel Services, Inc., and TSL Staff Leasing Inc. (collectively "Trend") appealed a Bankruptcy Court decision that granted Zurich American Insurance Company ("Zurich") an allowed unsecured claim of $7,603,017. Trend contested the amount of Zurich's claim, arguing that it constituted double-dipping for future losses and challenged the medical bill review fees as not contractually provided for, subject to the Statute of Frauds, and unconscionable. The District Court, presided over by Judge Karen Gren Scholer, affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision. The Court found no clear error or abuse of discretion in the Bankruptcy Court's award for unpaid invoices and future losses, and it affirmed the award of medical bill review fees, noting that Trend had agreed to the fees and the voluntary payment doctrine applied. The District Court also concluded that the medical bill review fees were not unconscionable, finding no absence of meaningful choice for Trend and that the fees were consistent with industry standards and provided value.

Bankruptcy AppealWorkers' Compensation InsuranceUnsecured ClaimMedical Bill Review FeesContract DisputeVoluntary Payment DoctrineUnconscionabilityStatute of FraudsDouble Dipping ClaimInsurance Reimbursement
References
13
Case No. ADJ3580938 (LBO 0389610) ADJ2553702 (LBO 0376341)
Regular
Feb 16, 2016

JOSE YANEZ, vs. SPECTER OFF ROAD, INC.; EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY; FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The WCAB granted reconsideration of a decision that limited a hospital's lien claim reimbursement and intended to sanction the hospital for bad faith. This rescission and remand for further proceedings occurred because the trial record was incomplete and failed to comply with WCAB Rule 10566 and *Hamilton*. Specifically, minutes of hearing lacked required information, and it was unclear if the hospital agreed to independent bill review. The WCJ must now address the hospital's arguments regarding bill review and the admissibility of the independent reviewer's report.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantMonrovia Memorial HospitalAdministrative Law JudgeJoint Findings of FactNotice of Intention to Impose SanctionsIndependent Bill ReviewerGriff StelznerWCAB Rule 10566
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Case No. 01-02-01008-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2003

Landmark Chevrolet, Corp. & Bill Heard Chevrolet, Corp. v. Universal Underwriters Insurance Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by Landmark Chevrolet Corp., Bill Heard Chevrolet Corp., and Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. (collectively, 'the dealerships') against Universal Underwriters Insurance Company ('Universal'). The dealerships were sued in two underlying class-action lawsuits by customers alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and fraud due to being charged a 'Consumer Services Fee' for a worthless coupon book. Universal, the dealerships' insurer, declined to defend them under their Statute and Title E&O (STEO) coverage, which only covered claims arising from violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws. Universal then filed a declaratory judgment action, seeking a declaration that it had no duty to defend. The trial court granted summary judgment in Universal’s favor. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, applying the 'eight-corners rule' and concluding that the underlying petitions did not allege facts indicating violations of truth-in-lending or truth-in-leasing laws, and declined to consider extrinsic evidence.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendEight-Corners RuleTruth-in-Lending LawsTruth-in-Leasing LawsDeclaratory JudgmentClass Action LawsuitsTexas Deceptive Trade Practices ActConsumer Services FeeAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2011

Celeste Grynberg and Jack J. Grynberg D/B/A Grynberg Petroleum v. M-I L.L.C.

The Grynbergs appealed a summary judgment that denied their petition for bill of review, seeking to overturn a no-answer default judgment in favor of M-I L.L.C. Their arguments included challenges to personal jurisdiction based on allegedly improper service on non-resident defendants and the contention that a motion for new trial did not constitute a general appearance. The court affirmed the judgment against Jack Grynberg, concluding he made a general appearance, thereby waiving his jurisdictional complaint. However, the court reversed and remanded the judgment against Celeste Grynberg, finding a material fact issue regarding whether she was properly served. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys' fees to M-I L.L.C.

Summary JudgmentBill of ReviewPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessNonresident DefendantGeneral AppearanceSpecial AppearanceDue ProcessDefault JudgmentMeritorious Defense
References
67
Showing 1-10 of 8,633 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