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. 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
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
Case No. ADJ8967361
Regular
Nov 26, 2014

FELIPE GARCIA (DECEASED) GUILLERMINA GARCIA (WIDOW) vs. SALVADOR GAYTAN dba G\&P AG MANAGEMENT CONTRACTORS, INC.; STAR INSURANCE, Adjusted by MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE GROUP

This case involved a petition for reconsideration by the applicant in a workers' compensation matter where the deceased worker, Felipe Garcia, was initially found to be an employee but later deemed an independent contractor by the Appeals Board. The applicant argued the Board erred by disregarding the WCJ's credibility assessment and by not applying Labor Code section 2750.5 to unlicensed contractors. The Board denied the petition, finding no evidence the deceased worker was engaged in activities requiring a contractor's license under Business and Professions Code sections 7000 and 7026. Therefore, Labor Code section 2750.5 was inapplicable, and the prior decision finding the applicant an independent contractor was upheld.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent contractorEmployee statusReconsiderationLabor Code section 2750.5Contractors' State License LawBlew v. HornerGarza v. Worker's Comp. Appeals Bd.Rinaldi v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Unlicensed contractor
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. International Business MacHines, Inc.

Plaintiff Caroline Wilson sued defendants International Business Machines (IBM) and Frank Urban, alleging gender and/or pregnancy discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and N.Y. Executive Law § 296. Wilson's employment was terminated in 2002 during a reduction in force, shortly after returning from maternity leave. She argued she was unfairly laid off in favor of a male colleague. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason related to retaining the other employee's customer relationships and ongoing deals. The court found that while Wilson established a prima facie case, she failed to demonstrate that the defendants' reasons were a pretext for discrimination, or to present sufficient other evidence of unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint.

DiscriminationGender DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary JudgmentLayoffReduction in ForcePretextPrima Facie Case
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keen v. Wausau Business Insurance

Plaintiff Timothy Keen sued Adrianne Annette Herrera and Wausau Business Insurance Company for mishandling his workers' compensation claim, asserting violations of the Texas Insurance Code, DTPA, and breach of common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. Defendants removed the case, arguing Herrera was improperly joined. The Court denied Keen's motion to remand, finding Herrera improperly joined as claims against her mirrored those against Wausau. The Court granted Wausau's motion to dismiss the Insurance Code and DTPA claims, citing the *Ruttiger* decision which foreclosed such private actions. Keen's common law bad faith claim was dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient pleading, with leave to amend.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsInsurance Code ViolationsDeceptive Trade Practices ActImproper Joinder DoctrineFederal Diversity JurisdictionMotion to RemandMotion to DismissCommon Law Bad FaithPleading RequirementsLeave to Amend
References
19
Case No. 12-02-00174-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2004

Jayanti Patel v. City of Everman, Tom Killebrew, and Metro Code Analysis, L.L.P.

Jayanti Patel appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the City of Everman and Tom Killebrew d/b/a Metro Code Analysis. Patel had sued the City and Killebrew for an unlawful taking of his properties without just compensation, procedural due process violations, trespass, and conversion, stemming from the demolition of his apartment buildings due to alleged code violations. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding Patel's consent to the demolition of fifteen properties, his due process claim, and his trespass and conversion claims due to res judicata. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Patel's takings claim concerning four specific properties (403 Lee Street, 410 Race Street, 405 King Street, and 403 King Street) where the defense of consent was not applicable and a fact issue existed regarding nuisance.

Property DemolitionInverse CondemnationSummary JudgmentTexas ConstitutionDue Process ClaimTrespass ClaimConversion ClaimRes JudicataNuisance DefenseAppellate Review
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 7,025 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