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. 09-21-00178-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

L&S Pro-Line, LLC and Lee Burkett v. Garrett Gagliano, Snook Holdings, LLC, and Tactical Automation, Inc.

This case involves a business dispute of a two-member Texas limited liability company, L&S Pro-Line (L&S). Appellants, L&S and Lee Burkett, appealed the trial court’s judgments for Appellees Garrett Gagliano, Snook Holdings, LLC, and Tactical Automation, Inc. The core issues included Burkett's attempt to purchase Gagliano's membership interest under the Company Agreement and Tactical Automation's standing as a third-party beneficiary. The Court of Appeals concluded that Burkett effectively exercised his option to buy Gagliano's interest and that Tactical Automation was not an intended third-party beneficiary. The court affirmed certain portions, reversed and rendered others (particularly concerning breach of contract and Tactical's damages), and reversed and remanded for further proceedings on issues like breach of fiduciary duty prior to the effective buyout.

Business DisputeLimited Liability CompanyMembership Interest BuyoutBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate LawSummary JudgmentCorporate GovernancePartnership Dispute
References
59
Case No. ADJ7421461
Regular
Jun 22, 2012

Bryan Cruz vs. KLLM TRANSPORTATION, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a dismissal order for failure to prosecute, finding that the applicant's attorneys' petition lacked merit and potentially constituted bad-faith tactics. The Board is issuing a notice of intent to sanction applicant's attorneys, jointly and severally, for up to $1,500 for frivolous actions and tactics, specifically noting a pattern of similar filings. The Board also noted the applicant's attorneys consented to the dismissal at a hearing where the applicant did not appear, and the petition for reconsideration failed to address these critical points. Sanctions are intended to address violations of rules regarding frivolous filings and willful non-compliance.

Petition for ReconsiderationRule 10582Failure to ProsecuteSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Rule 10561Bad Faith ActionsFrivolousUnnecessary DelayNotice of Intention to Dismiss
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2012

Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc., Gary Fears v. Searock, Jr., Charles

Charles Searock sued Tactical Air Defense Services, Inc. and Gary Fears for various causes of action arising from his employment. After their attorney withdrew, the defendants failed to appear at trial, resulting in a post-answer default judgment. Tactical and Fears filed a motion for new trial, arguing they did not receive notice of the trial setting, but the trial court denied it. On appeal, the court concluded that the appellants' affidavits demonstrated a lack of notice and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion. The judgment against Tactical and Fears was reversed and remanded for further proceedings, while affirmed in all other respects.

Post-answer default judgmentMotion for new trialNotice of trial settingDue processAttorney withdrawalAbuse of discretionAffidavitsEvidentiary hearingPresumption of serviceImputed notice
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

El Paso Electric Co. v. Texas Department of Insurance

The Texas Supreme Court addressed whether the State Insurance Liquidator, acting as a receiver or conservator for an insolvent insurance company, qualifies as a 'state agency' under Chapter 105 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. Chapter 105 permits litigants to recover fees and expenses if a state agency brings a frivolous claim. Reversing the lower courts, the Supreme Court determined that the receiver and conservator primarily perform a public, regulatory function under the ultimate control of the State Board of Insurance (or Department of Insurance). Therefore, their actions are attributable to the Board for Chapter 105 purposes. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine if the counterclaim was, in fact, frivolous.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeChapter 105State AgenciesFrivolous ClaimsInsurance RegulationState Insurance LiquidatorInsolvent InsurersReceivershipConservatorshipAttorney's Fees
References
26
Case No. ADJ954867 (SFO 0497953)
Regular
Dec 29, 2008

HERBERT BARRIOS vs. DEEP VAC, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board partially granted reconsideration, rescinding the award of attorney's fees for frivolous tactics but affirming the award for expert witness costs and a penalty for unreasonable refusal to pay. The Board found that while SCIF's refusal to pay for the diminished future earnings capacity expert was unreasonable, their actions did not rise to the level of bad faith or frivolous conduct required for sanctions. A dissenting opinion argued to affirm the original award of sanctions, finding SCIF's actions to be unreasonable and in bad faith based on prior unfavorable decisions and testimony from SCIF's claims adjustor.

Diminished Future Earnings CapacityVocational RehabilitationLabor Code section 5811Labor Code section 5814Labor Code section 5813Expert Witness FeesReconsiderationFindings and AwardSanctionsBad Faith Tactics
References
3
Case No. 13 AD3d 199
Regular Panel Decision

Heilbut v. Heilbut

This protracted 14-year case, 'Heilbut v. Heilbut', involves the Appellate Division's decision to impose sanctions against defendant Francis Heilbut and his attorney, Jack S. Dweck. The court found defendant's recent appeal frivolous, citing a history of delaying and obfuscating tactics in the underlying divorce and equitable distribution proceedings. Defendant had previously been held in contempt for non-compliance with court orders concerning the sale of marital property. The opinion emphasizes defendant's relentless campaign to prolong litigation despite numerous warnings. Consequently, plaintiff Monika Heilbut was awarded costs and attorney's fees, and significant sanctions were levied against both defendant and his counsel for their frivolous appellate practice.

Frivolous AppealSanctionsAttorney MisconductContempt of CourtDivorce ProceedingsEquitable DistributionAppellate ProcedureDelay TacticsVexatious LitigationNew York Law
References
5
Case No. ADJ11080934
Regular
Oct 28, 2025

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. CREAM OF THE CROP AG SERVICE, INC.; CA FARM MANAGEMENT, INC.

The applicant, Juan Martinez, sought reconsideration of a prior decision that reversed a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order imposing sanctions against the defendant for alleged frivolous tactics. The Appeals Board originally found insufficient evidence of bad-faith conduct by the defendant, Cream of the Crop AG Service, Inc. and CA Farm Management, Inc. In this petition, the applicant sought clarification on the standard of review and claimed certain issues were not addressed. The Board denied the applicant's petition, reiterating its finding that the defendant's actions did not constitute bad-faith litigation tactics under Labor Code section 5813, and confirmed that the responsibility for pursuing discovery, such as a neuropsychological evaluation recommended by Dr. Bhatia in 2018, did not rest solely on the defendant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5813SanctionsAttorneys' FeesFrivolous TacticsBad Faith ConductNeuropsychology EvaluationAdditional PanelsReconsideration Proceedings
References
13
Case No. Misc. No. 257
En Banc
Dec 16, 2015

vs. Javier Jimenez

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a notice of its intention to suspend Javier Jimenez's privilege to appear as a representative for 180 days due to a pattern of misconduct, frivolous tactics, and failure to comply with sanction orders.

Labor Code section 4907Representative privilege suspensionAppeals Board en bancSanctionsBad-faith actionsFrivolous tacticsLien claimantsLabor Code section 5700 agentWCJDiscovery abuse
References
18
Case No. Misc. No. 254
En Banc
Sep 21, 2011

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARD STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs. Daniel Escamilla

Notice of a hearing to consider suspending or removing Daniel Escamilla's privilege to appear before the WCAB due to a pattern of repeated sanctions for bad-faith actions, frivolous tactics, and filing pleadings with false statements of fact.

Labor Code 4907Privilege SuspensionRemoval of PrivilegeBad Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary DelayWillful Non-ComplianceDisruption of ProceedingsMeritleless ArgumentsSanctions
References
28
Case No. Misc. No. 254
En Banc
Sep 21, 2011

vs. Daniel Escamilla

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board issued a Notice of Hearing to consider suspending or removing Daniel Escamilla's privilege to appear as a representative, citing a history of sanctions for bad-faith actions, frivolous tactics, and causing unnecessary delays.

Labor Code Section 4907Privilege SuspensionRepresentative MisconductBad Faith ActionsFrivolous PleadingsMisrepresentations of FactAppeals Board RulesState Bar RulesWCJ SanctionsHearing Representative
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 564 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