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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tribble & Stephens Co. v. Consolidated Services, Inc.

Consolidated Services, Inc., an electrical subcontractor, sued general contractor Tribble & Stephens Company and owner Dayton-Hudson Corp. for wrongful termination of contract and conversion of materials. The trial court awarded Consolidated Services, Inc. actual damages for breach of contract, conversion damages, exemplary damages, foreclosure of a mechanic's lien, and attorney's fees. Appellants Tribble & Stephens Company and Dayton-Hudson Corp. appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for conversion, malice, breach of contract damages, and the foreclosure of the lien. The appellate court affirmed the findings for breach of contract and conversion damages and attorney's fees, but reversed the awards for exemplary damages and the foreclosure of the mechanic's and materialman's lien due to lack of evidence and procedural omissions.

Construction ContractBreach of ContractWrongful TerminationConversionMechanic's LienMaterialman's LienExemplary DamagesAttorney's FeesAppellate ReviewEvidentiary Sufficiency
References
28
Case No. ADJ1996953
Regular
May 18, 2012

SALVADOR BECERRA vs. CONSOLIDATED DISPOSAL SERVICES c/o CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Salvador Becerra against Consolidated Disposal Services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the accompanying administrative law judge's report. Finding no grounds to disturb the original decision, the Board denied the Petition for Removal. This denial means the administrative law judge's prior decision stands.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law Judge ReportDeny RemovalConsolidated Disposal ServicesCannon Cochran Management ServicesSalvadore BecerraADJ1996953LAO 0845259Removal Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cebcor Service Corp. v. Landscape Design and Construction, Inc.

This case involves Cebcor Service Corporation appealing a trial court's judgment that held them liable for a default judgment previously rendered against Consolidated Employment Benefit Service Corporation, also known as Cebcor Service Corporation. Cebcor argued it was never served in the underlying action and that the alter ego theory, which linked it to Consolidated, was irrelevant and improperly pleaded. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that service on an alter ego constitutes valid service. The court further determined that the alter ego theory was properly pleaded and relevant to the issue of service of process in a bill of review case, and noted that Cebcor had waived challenges to the original service on Consolidated.

Alter EgoDefault JudgmentService of ProcessBill of ReviewCorporate LiabilityTexas LawAppellate ReviewCorporate VeilProcedural IssuesDue Diligence
References
13
Case No. 2022-05-1262, 2022-05-0597
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2024

Burris, Stuart v. WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc., and Burris v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

The employee, Stuart Burris, filed two separate workers' compensation petitions against two different employers, WWL Vehicle Services Americas, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC, for distinct low back and hip injuries sustained in 2020 and 2022, respectively. The trial court consolidated the cases and, in an interlocutory hearing, awarded benefits against Amazon, partly relying on evidence introduced by WWL. Amazon appealed, arguing that evidence introduced by one employer in a consolidated case should not be used against another, and that the employee was effectively relieved of his burden of proof. The Tennessee Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated the trial court's order. It held that consolidation does not merge separate actions or alter evidentiary requirements, meaning evidence must be presented by a party to the specific claim against which it is to be used. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Workers' Compensation AppealsCase ConsolidationEvidentiary BurdenMedical CausationAuthorized Treating PhysicianPre-existing ConditionInterlocutory HearingTemporary Disability BenefitsJudicial EconomyRule 42.01
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, acting as a governmental agency and successor in interest to several insolvent workers' compensation self-insured trusts, commenced an action against a third-party administrator (Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.), its employees, related corporate entities, insurance brokers (including Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc.), former trustees of one of the trusts (RITNY), and an actuarial firm (Regnier Consulting Group, Inc.). The plaintiff alleged misconduct and malfeasance by the defendants led to trust insolvencies and sought to recover accumulated deficits. The case involves cross appeals challenging the Supreme Court’s partial dismissal of the complaint, specifically concerning the timeliness of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and common-law indemnification, applying the repudiation and discovery rules for statute of limitations. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by dismissing specific claims against Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc., broadening the temporal scope of breach of fiduciary duty claims against other defendants, and reinstating common-law indemnification claims against several RITNY trustees, affirming the order as modified and remitting the case.

Workers' CompensationBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractCommon-Law IndemnificationStatute of LimitationsRepudiation RuleDiscovery RuleTrust Insolvency
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

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
Case No. 303-0203A, 304-0386A
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2004

Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC v. Quart Limited, LLC (In Re Holcomb Health Care Services, LLC)

This case involved consolidated adversary proceedings where Holcomb Healthcare Services, LLC (HHCS), the debtor, sought to establish ownership of intellectual property and recover funds from Dr. Robert R. Holcomb and numerous related entities. Dr. Holcomb, as Chief Scientific Officer and acting Chief Manager of HHCS, allegedly breached his fiduciary duties by attempting to divert intellectual property and misappropriate company funds. The court granted HHCS a declaratory judgment, affirming its rightful ownership of a broad range of patents and patent applications under both the Employment Agreement and the Assignment. Furthermore, the court found Dr. Holcomb breached his duty of loyalty. Monetary judgments were awarded to HHCS totaling over $4 million for improperly allocated expenses and an additional $1.8 million for fraudulent conveyances. The court denied requests for substantive consolidation, corporate veil piercing, exemplary damages, and attorney fees, but granted prejudgment interest to HHCS.

BankruptcyIntellectual PropertyPatentsFraudulent ConveyanceFiduciary DutyDuty of LoyaltyCorporate GovernanceInsolvencyAdversary ProceedingTennessee Law
References
57
Case No. 15-25-00012-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2025

State of Texas, Acting by and Through the Texas Facilities Commission, for and on Behalf of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission; The Texas Facilities Commission; Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Facilities Commission; The Texas Health and Human Services Commission; And Rolland Niles in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. 8317 Cross Park, LLC

This is an interlocutory appeal from a denial-in-part of Appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction. Appellee filed an action against the State of Texas, TFC, HHSC, Executive Director Mike Novak of TFC, and Deputy Executive Commissioner for System Support Services Division of HHSC Rolland Niles alleging causes of action for breach of lease, ultra vires conduct related to the termination of the lease, and declaratory relief. Appellants argue that the trial court erred in denying their plea because Chapter 114 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code does not waive sovereign immunity for the State of Texas, HHSC, or TFC for breach of lease claims, and the lease is not a contract for goods or services covered by Chapter 114. Furthermore, Appellants contend that the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) does not waive sovereign immunity for Appellee's declaratory judgment claim as it does not challenge the constitutionality or validity of a statute, and Appellee has not alleged a cognizable ultra vires claim against the state officials. Appellants seek reversal of the partial denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissal of Appellee's claims.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of LeaseDeclaratory JudgmentUltra ViresTexas Civil Practices and Remedies CodeTexas Government CodeAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionState AgenciesContract Law
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Superior Snubbing Services, Inc. v. Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc.

Superior Snubbing Services, Inc. appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Energy Service Company of Bowie, Inc. The case originated from an injury sustained by a Superior employee, Daryll Faulk, while working under a Master Service Agreement between Superior and Mitchell Energy Corporation (now Devon Energy Operating, L.P.). Faulk sued Energy and others, leading to a settlement, after which Energy and Mitchell sought indemnity from Superior based on the contract. Superior argued that Energy's claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Texas Labor Code and the contract was unenforceable under the Texas Oilfield Anti-Indemnity Act. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, concluding that under Texas Labor Code section 417.004, third-party beneficiaries like Energy are not permissible indemnitees because the agreement was not directly with the 'third party'.

Workers' CompensationIndemnificationContractual LiabilityTexas Labor CodeOilfield Anti-Indemnity ActSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate ReviewReverse and Remand
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 9,756 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