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. ADJ9569685
Regular
Oct 26, 2015

Oscar Cuellar vs. KLM Development, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to further develop the record concerning the applicant's employment status. The prior decision found the applicant was an independent contractor and not employed by KLM Development. The Board is returning the case to the trial level for analysis of Labor Code section 2750.5 and Business and Professions Code section 7125.2, particularly regarding the licensing and insurance status of the alleged independent contractor, Jaime Perez.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderindependent contractoremployee statusLabor Code 2750.5Business and Professions Code 7125.2license statusinsurance statusRinaldi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
4
Case No. 2-04-065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tarrant County Hospital District D/B/A John Peter Smith Hospital v. GE Automation Services, Inc., F/K/A GE Industrial Systems Solutions, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., F/K/A GE Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company

Appellant Tarrant County Hospital District appealed a summary judgment granted to Appellees GE Automation Services, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company. The suit stemmed from a 1996 transaction where Appellant alleged Appellees provided a defective bus duct system, leading to contract, warranty, products liability, and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 2.725) barred the contract and warranty claims, overriding governmental immunity. Furthermore, the court held that the economic loss rule precluded Appellant's tort claims, as the alleged damages constituted economic losses to the subject matter of the contract itself.

Summary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEconomic Loss RuleBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyProducts LiabilityNegligenceUniform Commercial CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
34
Case No. 2016-334 S C
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2017

2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Advantage Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by 2 & 9 Acupuncture, P.C. from an amended order that granted summary judgment to 21st Century Advantage Insurance Company, dismissing a complaint to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant argued it had paid the plaintiff in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendant failed to prima facie demonstrate proper denial of payment for services billed under CPT codes 97026 and 97016. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding these specific CPT codes was denied.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentCPT CodesWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawMedical BillingAcupunctureSuffolk CountyPayment Dispute
References
3
Case No. ADJ9351964 ADJ9351965
Regular
Mar 15, 2016

ROGELIO CORNEJO vs. YOUNIQUE CAFÉ, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

In this case, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of its prior en banc decision. The prior decision held that Chapter 20 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions Code did not apply to a copy service lien claimant acting as an agent or independent contractor for a lawyer. Consequently, proof of registration and bonding under Business and Professions Code sections 22450 and 22455 was deemed unnecessary in such circumstances. The Board granted reconsideration to further study the factual and legal issues presented.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardYounique CaféZenith Insurance CompanyWestern Imaging ServicesInc.Rogelio CornejoPetition for ReconsiderationEn BancChapter 20Business and Professions Code
References
0
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. ADJ8387626
Regular
Oct 29, 2015

ANA DIAZ vs. SAMBRAILO PACKAGING, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claim for photocopying services provided by California Imaging Solutions (CIS). The WCJ initially disallowed the lien because CIS was not registered as a professional photocopier, as required by Business and Professions Code section 22450. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that CIS was exempt from this registration requirement under Business and Professions Code section 22451(b) because it acted as an agent or independent contractor for applicant's attorney. The case is returned to the trial level to address record deficiencies and re-evaluate the lien claim's compensability in light of this exemption.

Lien ClaimantReconsiderationFindings And OrderAdministrative Law JudgeWCJProfessional PhotocopierBusiness and Professions Code Section 22450Business and Professions Code Section 22451(b)State BarAgent
References
3
Case No. ADJ8997883
Regular
Jan 04, 2016

PEDRO ALAVEZ vs. SAK'S TERIYAKI, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a lien claim by Western Imaging Services, Inc. (WIS) for copying services provided to applicant's attorney. The WCJ initially disallowed the lien, finding WIS failed to prove it was an independent contractor exempt from Business and Professions Code section 22450. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, holding that WIS made a prima facie showing of exemption under Business and Professions Code section 22451(b) by acting as an agent or independent contractor for a State Bar member. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level for a new decision on the lien claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardWestern Imaging ServicesInc.Business and Professions Code section 22451independent contractoragentState Barlien claimantreconsiderationPrima facie showing
References
1
Case No. ADJ8313132
Regular
2015-05-00

Ana Garcia vs. Exemplar Enterprise, Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

This case involves a lien claim by Preferred Scan, Inc. (PSI) for photocopying services provided to the applicant's attorney. The initial ruling disallowed PSI's lien, finding it failed to meet registration and bonding requirements for professional photocopiers under Business and Professions Code sections 22450 and 22455. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reversed this decision, holding that PSI was exempt as an independent contractor of a member of the State Bar pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 22451(b). The WCAB found sufficient evidence that PSI acted as an agent or independent contractor for the attorney, thus making registration and bonding unnecessary. The case was returned to the trial level to determine the amount due on PSI's lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeIndependent ContractorBusiness and Professions Code Section 22451Registration RequirementsBonding RequirementsMember of the State Bar
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Armadillo Bail Bonds v. State

This case involves an appeal by Jerry Wardlow, doing business as Armadillo Bail Bonds, a surety, against the State of Texas regarding a criminal bail bond forfeiture. The central issue is whether article 22.16(c)(2) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which delays final judgment against a bond for eighteen months in felony cases, violates the separation of powers doctrine of the Texas Constitution. The trial court had entered a final judgment before the expiration of the eighteen-month period, concluding the statute was unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that the legislative imposition of an eighteen-month delay in entering final judgment constitutes an unconstitutional interference with the judiciary's power, which includes the power to enter and execute judgments. The court reasoned that such a delay usurps judicial functions and renders the judicial branch powerless to administer justice without denial or delay.

Bail Bond ForfeitureSeparation of PowersJudicial PowerLegislative InterferenceTexas ConstitutionCode of Criminal ProcedureFinal Judgment DelayAppellate ReviewConstitutional LawJudicial Branch
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 8,601 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