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. 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. 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. 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. 11-08-00110-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Great Western Drilling, Limited v. Bill Alexander

Great Western Drilling, Limited, appealed a take-nothing verdict in its suit against attorney Bill Alexander. Great Western claimed Alexander conspired with his client, Marilyn Paschal, to convert insurance proceeds that Great Western asserted were its equitable property, purchased with embezzled funds. The case stemmed from an earlier suit where Great Western sued Paschal for embezzlement and sought a constructive trust on the proceeds. The trial court severed claims against Alexander. At trial, the jury found that Alexander did not have notice that Great Western owned the insurance proceeds, leading to a verdict in Alexander's favor. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, finding the jury's lack of notice finding was not against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence, and any error regarding expert testimony was not reversible. Alexander's cross-appeal for sanctions was also denied.

ConversionInsurance ProceedsAttorney LiabilityFraudEmbezzlementNoticeJury VerdictSufficiency of EvidenceExpert TestimonyAppellate Review
References
34
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
Case No. ADJ7038469
Regular
Sep 17, 2014

AZIZA SAYED vs. GIORGIO ARMANI, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant's petition to appeal an Administrative Director's Independent Bill Review (IBR) determination was dismissed. The Board found the petition premature as it was not first heard by a trial level Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). Additionally, the petition failed to comply with numerous procedural requirements, including proper captioning, verification, service, and stating specific grounds for appeal. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition appealing the IBR determination were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Bill ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative DirectorLabor Code section 4603.6MAXIMUS Federal ServicesInc.Lien claimantOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleWCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure
References
0
Case No. ADJ1504028 (AHM 0081465); ADJ603748 (AHM 0081464)
Regular
Oct 09, 2025

JENNIFER DICORATO vs. BLOOMFIELD BAKERY, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The case involves a petition for removal filed by lien claimant Stuart Silverman, M.D., challenging an order by a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ). The WCJ's order permitted the defendant to substitute a bill review expert witness and allow remote testimony. The Appeals Board, after reviewing the petition, defendant's answer, and the WCJ's report, dismissed the petition. The Board concluded that the issue was not yet ripe for adjudication as no final order or decision regarding the expert witness substitution or remote testimony had been issued by the WCJ. The decision further noted the importance of a complete record and admonished the lien claimant's representative, Dan Escamilla, for misrepresenting facts in the verified petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalLien ClaimantSubstitution of Expert WitnessRemote TestimonyWCJ DecisionNot Ripe for AdjudicationPretrial Conference StatementSubstantial EvidenceAdmitted EvidenceSanctions
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gans

This court opinion addresses whether a certified social worker can be qualified as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding a defendant's mental capacity to proceed and future competency. The defense sought to qualify Hillel Bodek, a certified social worker specializing in forensic clinical social work, as an expert witness for these purposes. The court meticulously reviewed the qualifications of clinical social workers, acknowledging their critical role in the diagnosis of mental disorders, including their involvement in the development of the DSM III. Despite statutory provisions in CPL article 730 outlining who may serve as psychiatric examiners, the court emphasized that other appropriately trained and experienced experts can also offer testimony on competence. Ultimately, the court ruled in the affirmative, concluding that certified social workers with demonstrated training and supervised clinical experience in diagnosis and capacity assessment are qualified to provide expert testimony on these crucial issues.

Expert Witness QualificationCertified Social WorkerMental Capacity AssessmentCompetency to ProceedForensic Mental HealthDiagnostic AssessmentPrognostic StatementsCriminal Procedure Law Article 730DSM IIINon-Medical Expert Testimony
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haddad v. City of Albany

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their application, which combined a CPLR article 78 proceeding and an action for declaratory judgment. The application challenged the respondent's denial of a request to rescind waste removal violation bills issued by the Department of General Services (DGS) of the City of Albany. The Supreme Court had found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that claims regarding preemption of local waste ordinances by state penal law were without merit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) administratively reviewed the violations, reversing some charges and upholding others. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that a violation of the City of Albany's waste code was not a criminal violation under Penal Law § 55.10, and that the petitioner was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies for their constitutional claims, as these claims implicated specific aspects of the administrative proceeding rather than the administrative scheme itself.

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 8,240 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