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. 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. No. 28
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

The Matter of Mental Hygiene Legal Service v. Kerry Delaney

This case involves an appeal by Mental Hygiene Legal Service on behalf of a 16-year-old child with developmental disabilities who was confined to an emergency room for several weeks due to a lack of suitable residential placement or in-home services. Petitioner sought the child's immediate discharge and a declaration that the state's failure to provide community habilitation and respite services was arbitrary and violated her statutory rights under CPLR articles 70 and 78, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lower courts dismissed the petition, finding the matter moot but applying the exception. The Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed the appeal on grounds of mootness, citing intervening material alterations to service programs, specifically the Crisis Services for Individuals with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities (CSIDD) program. A dissenting opinion argued for the application of the mootness exception and the viability of petitioner's claims under state and federal law.

Developmental DisabilitiesMedicaid ServicesEmergency Room ConfinementMootness ExceptionIntegration MandateMental Hygiene LawAmericans with Disabilities ActCrisis ServicesResidential PlacementNew York Court of Appeals
References
33
Case No. 01-14-00906-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2014

John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC v. the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Inc.

This appeal concerns a judgment for attorneys' fees awarded to the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston (Houston BBB) against John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. John Moore initially filed a lawsuit alleging various torts, and the Houston BBB moved to dismiss under the Anti-SLAPP statute. The court of appeals reversed the trial court's denial of the Houston BBB's motion, leading to a jury trial on attorneys' fees, costs, and sanctions. The jury found in favor of the Houston BBB, and the trial court entered a judgment consistent with the verdict, dismissing John Moore's claims with prejudice and awarding fees and sanctions. John Moore, as the appellant, argues that the awarded attorneys' fees are not legally sufficient due to inadequate documentation and that a new trial is warranted to consider all of its claims, including antitrust claims, which it contends were improperly severed. The core argument is about the reasonableness and necessity of the fees and the equity of the award given the procedural history.

Attorneys' FeesAnti-SLAPP StatuteAppellate ProcedureCase ConsolidationJudicial DiscretionLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceReasonableness of FeesSanctionsTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeFree Speech Rights
References
18
Case No. ADJ4517161 (OXN 0141672) ADJ3871851 (OXN 0141670)
Regular
Jun 13, 2011

CANDICE CHAVEZ vs. COUNTY OF VENTURA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board imposed a $2,500 sanction against Dan Escamilla and Legal Service Bureau for filing a frivolous petition for reconsideration. The petition contained materially false statements, including mischaracterizing evidence and making legally unsupported arguments regarding psychiatric injury compensability. Despite Escamilla's attempts to excuse these actions, the Board found them objectively unreasonable and a repeated disregard for practice rules, noting his history of sanctions.

SanctionFrivolous PetitionMaterially False StatementsLegal Service BureauDan EscamillaPORAC Lien ClaimDr. WarickLabor Code 3208.3(b)(1)Psychiatric InjuryPredominant Cause
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mental Hygiene Legal Service v. Maul

The Mental Hygiene Legal Service (MHLS), represented by its director Bruce Dix, petitioned the court to compel Thomas Maul, Commissioner of OMRDD, and Joseph Colarusso, Director of Sunmount DDSO, to provide access to investigative files regarding an incident involving resident Lynnette T. MHLS argued its statutory mandate under Mental Hygiene Law § 47.03 required access to safeguard residents from abuse. Respondents contended the records were protected from disclosure under Education Law § 6527 (3) and Mental Hygiene Law § 29.29, which prioritize confidentiality for quality assurance and incident investigations. The court, however, distinguished between CPLR Article 31 discovery and MHLS's specific statutory right of access. The court ruled that the statutes cited by the respondents did not prohibit disclosure to MHLS, granting MHLS access to the requested investigative reports and underlying documentation, with the stipulation that MHLS maintain their confidentiality.

Mental Hygiene LawAccess to RecordsCPLR Article 78Investigative FilesPatient RightsConfidentialityAbuse and MistreatmentState FacilitiesOMRDDSunmount DDSO
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirkin & Gordon, P. C. v. Suffolk County-Local 852 Civil Service Employees Ass'n Legal Services Fund

This case involves an appeal by the Legal Services Fund (defendant) from an order denying its motion to dismiss a breach of contract complaint filed by a law firm (plaintiff). The plaintiff law firm sued the Legal Services Fund for breach of retainer agreements and non-payment for services. The defendant sought dismissal based on res judicata, arguing that a prior federal lawsuit, which was dismissed on the merits, barred the state action. The federal action, filed by the plaintiff law firm against county legislators and welfare fund trustees, alleged a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights under 42 USC § 1983 by terminating their retainer. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the dismissal motion. This appellate decision affirms that denial, concluding that res judicata does not apply because the parties and claims in the federal and state actions were not identical, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the contract claims against the Legal Services Fund.

Breach of ContractRes JudicataClaim PreclusionFederal Court JurisdictionState Court ActionDismissalAppellate ReviewCivil Rights (42 USC § 1983)Legal ServicesLaw Firm Retainer
References
8
Case No. 15-25-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2025

State of Texas, the Texas Facilities Commission, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the TFC, 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. Broadmoor Austin Associates, a Texas Joint Venture

Broadmoor Austin Associates leased office space to the Texas government, specifically the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), through the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC). Rent has been unpaid for nearly two years due to alleged misconduct by state officials. Broadmoor asserts that sovereign immunity does not bar its claims for breach of contract, citing Chapter 114's express waiver for contracts involving construction and related services. Additionally, Broadmoor brings ultra vires claims against TFC Executive Director Mike Novak and HHSC Deputy Executive Commissioner Roland Niles, alleging their actions were beyond legal authority or a failure to perform ministerial duties. Broadmoor seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to ensure these officials comply with state law, specifically regarding the availability of appropriated funds for the lease.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractUltra Vires DoctrineState AgenciesGovernment ContractsLease AgreementsLegislative AppropriationsExecutive AuthorityJudicial ReviewTexas Facilities Commission
References
69
Case No. ADJ1194116 (LAO 0797672)
Regular
Jul 14, 2010

DONNA ORTIZ vs. CROWN TOYOTA, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, UNIVERSAL UNDERWRITERS GROUP

This case involves a $750 sanction jointly imposed against Daniel Escamilla and Legal Service Bureau for filing a petition for reconsideration without proper diligence. The Appeals Board found that Mr. Escamilla failed to review crucial case documents, including typed minutes of hearing, leading to inaccurate assertions. This lack of diligence wasted judicial resources, although the sanction was reduced due to the possibility the petition was filed without actual knowledge of the falsehoods. The Board cited Mr. Escamilla's history of sanctions in determining the final amount.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionDaniel EscamillaLegal Service BureauPetition for ReconsiderationIgnorance of True FactsMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceDiligenceJudicial Resources
References
0
Case No. 13-10-00498-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2012

Service Corporation International and Sci Texas Funeral Services, Inc. v. Leticia Leal

This case involved an appeal from a trial court judgment that found Service Corporation International and SCI Texas Funeral Services, Inc. liable for fraud concerning burial plots. The appellees, families of Rodolfo Garza and Charles Rogers, alleged fraud and sought damages for mental anguish. The jury found fraud but also found that most appellees had not filed within the four-year statute of limitations, a finding the trial court disregarded. On appeal, the Thirteenth District Court of Texas reversed and rendered judgment in favor of the appellants, concluding that all claims except Leticia Leal's were barred by limitations and that there was legally insufficient evidence for mental anguish damages for most appellees. Consequently, the awards for actual and exemplary damages were also reversed.

Fraudulent ConcealmentDiscovery RuleStatute of LimitationsMental Anguish DamagesExemplary DamagesBurial DisputesCemetery PracticesCorporate LiabilityTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate Procedure
References
25
Case No. 3-91-200-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1992

McCelvey Jones v. Barry Couch, Anco Insurance Services of Texas, Inc., Anco Insurance Services of Bryan/College Station, Inc., Anco Insurance Services of Houston, Inc. & Anco Insurance Managers, Inc.

McCelvey Jones sued Barry Couch and Anco Insurance Services of Texas, et al., for tortious interference with a contract and a business relationship related to Jones's role as agent of record for King's Daughters Hospital and underwriter Myron F. Steves and Company. The district court granted summary judgment for the appellees. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Couch's alleged tortious interference with a business relationship. Specifically, there was conflicting evidence about Couch's role and influence as a Board of Trustees member and chairman of an insurance committee, and whether his actions constituted 'malice' in the legal sense, defined as wrongful conduct without justification. The court highlighted a fact question regarding whether Couch violated the Hospital's by-laws by acting in a matter where he had a financial interest. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

Tortious InterferenceSummary JudgmentBusiness RelationshipContract InterferenceMaliceAgencyInsuranceTexas Court of AppealsFactual DisputeRemand
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 12,553 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