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. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. 08-11-00092-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2012

Business Staffing, Inc., Transglobal Indemnity Limited, Inc., Harry Sewill, Richard Gable Chapman, Bart Bogus, BSI Insurance Services, Inc., Transglobal Mortgage, Inc., and LHR Enterprises, Inc. v. Jackson Hot Oil Service D/B/A Jackson Brothers Hot Oil Service and Cody Jackson

This case involves an appeal from a final judgment against Business Staffing, Inc. (BSI) and related entities (Appellants) in favor of Jackson Hot Oil Service and individuals (Appellees). Appellees sued for breach of contract, DTPA violations, breach of good faith, negligence, and fraud, stemming from Appellants' alleged failure to provide workers' compensation insurance. The jury found Appellants engaged in unconscionable and deceptive acts and committed fraud, particularly against Cody Jackson, who suffered severe burns in an on-the-job accident. The appellate court affirmed most of the jury's findings, including those on statute of limitations, DTPA violations, and fraud, but reformed the judgment to adjust the calculation of damages under the DTPA and reflect a remittitur for Jackson Brothers.

Workers' Compensation FraudDeceptive Trade Practices ActInsurance MisrepresentationCivil ConspiracyBreach of ContractAppellate Court DecisionTexas Civil LawStatute of Limitations DefenseExemplary DamagesActual Damages
References
53
Case No. WCK 0068998
Regular
Jan 22, 2008

LINDA FONTENOT vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES INC., PINNACLE RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded sanctions imposed against Barrett Business Services Inc. (represented by Pinnacle Risk Management Services) and its adjustor, Chamber Medical Collections, Inc. (CMC), for failing to appear at a hearing. The WCAB found that CMC provided a reasonable excuse for its non-appearance, supported by a doctor's note, and deemed the sanctions disproportionate. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings on other sanctions and the underlying lien claim.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationSanction OrdersLien ClaimantFailure to AppearWCJPetition for ReconsiderationTimelinessReasonable ExcuseDoctor's Statement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Moore

Sherry Moore, an employee of the City of Marshall, suffered a work-related injury in January 1987. Although GAB Business Services, the insurance adjuster, initially paid for some medical expenses, they denied weekly workers' compensation benefits for her back injury, claiming it was from a separate incident at home. Moore successfully appealed to the Industrial Accident Board and later won a bench trial, which found her back injury compensable and led to a lawsuit against GAB, the City, and the Risk Pool for bad faith and deceptive trade practices. A jury found in favor of Moore against GAB for $25,000 in actual damages and $75,000 in exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment against GAB, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that GAB acted in bad faith by denying the claim without a reasonable basis, and engaged in unfair practices, causing Moore mental anguish damages. The court also rejected GAB's defenses of governmental and official immunity and upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsInsurance Bad FaithDeceptive Trade Practices ActSufficiency of EvidenceMental Anguish DamagesGovernmental ImmunityOfficial ImmunityIndependent ContractorJury InstructionsEvidentiary Rulings
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beneficial Personnel Services of Texas, Inc. v. Rey

Ramon Rey, an oil field worker, sued Beneficial Personnel Services of Texas, Inc. (BPS) and Business Staffing, Inc. (BSI) after suffering a back injury. Rey's original employer, White Well Service, transitioned its employees to BPS/BSI, an employee leasing company, with promises of equivalent workers' compensation benefits. However, after Rey's injury, BPS/BSI significantly underpaid his benefits, delayed necessary surgery, and used an unlicensed insurance carrier. The jury found BPS committed fraud and that BPS and BSI operated as a single business enterprise, awarding Rey actual and exemplary damages, along with damages for mental anguish and damage to credit reputation. The trial court affirmed the judgment against both defendants, and this opinion upholds that decision, finding sufficient evidence for fraud, exemplary damages, and mental anguish, and that single business enterprise theory is a valid means of imposing tort liability.

Fraudulent InducementWorkers' Compensation PolicySingle Business Enterprise TheoryEmployee Leasing CompanyExemplary Damages AwardMental Anguish RecoveryCredit Reputation InjuryBreach of Employment ContractCorporate Veil PiercingUnlicensed Insurance Carrier
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ogiba v. Business Services Co. of Utica

The plaintiff, Robert Ogiba, sued his former employer, Business Services Company of Utica (BSC), alleging age discrimination under the ADEA after his termination as a copier technician during a company-wide downsizing in 1992. Ogiba claimed his termination was due to his age, citing comments made by superiors and the retention of younger employees. BSC countered that Ogiba was terminated due to unsatisfactory job performance compared to coworkers, which was the criterion used for a reduction in force. The court found that while Ogiba met the satisfactory performance element of a prima facie case, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to infer age discrimination, noting the 'same actor inference' and the innocuous nature of alleged discriminatory comments. Consequently, BSC's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentADEADisparate TreatmentReduction in ForceJob PerformancePrima Facie CaseEvidentiary StandardDiscrimination Inference
References
23
Case No. ADJ7073183
Regular
Dec 26, 2012

HUMBERTO CABRERA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involved a petition for reconsideration filed by Humberto Cabrera against Barrett Business Services. The Board dismissed the petition because it was not filed within the statutory timeframe. Even if it had been timely, the Board would have denied the petition on its merits. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTimely-filedDismissedReport and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgePermissibly Self-InsuredWCJDeny on the meritsADJ7073183
References
0
Case No. 15-24-00124-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2024

ETC Field Services, LLC FKA. Regency Field Services, LLC v. Tema Oil and Gas Company

This case involves an appeal by ETC Field Services, LLC, challenging a remand order issued by the Business Court of Texas, Eighth Division. The original dispute, a breach of contract and negligence claim filed in 2017 by Tema Oil and Gas Co., was removed by ETC to the newly established Business Court in September 2024. Tema subsequently sought remand, arguing that the legislative act creating the Business Courts (H.B. 19) only applies to cases commenced on or after September 1, 2024. The Business Court agreed, ordering the case remanded to the 236th District Court of Tarrant County. ETC contends that H.B. 19 is a procedural statute and that its provisions for removal should apply retroactively to existing cases, asserting that the Business Court erred in its statutory interpretation and determination of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Business Court denied Tema's request for sanctions against ETC.

JurisdictionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationBusiness LawRemand OrderTexas CourtsCivil ProcedureRetroactivityContract DisputeOil and Gas Industry
References
50
Case No. ADJ10250093
Regular
Dec 22, 2016

DENIS PADILLA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns an applicant, Denis Padilla, versus their employer, Barrett Business Services, Inc. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied Padilla's Petition for Reconsideration in this matter. The WCAB adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) in their decision. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration has been formally denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeOpinion on DecisionPermit Self-InsuredADJ10250093Pomona District OfficeDenying PetitionWCJ ReportAdopted Opinion
References
0
Case No. ADJ7762176
Regular
Dec 16, 2011

MARTIN ESPARZA vs. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC.

In *Esparza v. Barrett Business Services, Inc.*, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a September 28, 2011 Findings and Award. The WCAB granted reconsideration to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is deemed necessary for a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision. All future communications must be directed to the WCAB's Office of the Commissioners.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Awardstatutory time constraintsfactual and legal issuesjust and reasoned decisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersFrank M. BrassAlponso J. Moresi
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 10,229 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