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. 14-18-00062-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2019

Michael Lee Wyrick A/K/A Mike Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke A/K/A Greg Ruhnke v. Business Bank of Texas, N. A.

This case involves two individual guarantors, Michael Lee Wyrick and Gregory Michael Ruhnke, appealing a trial court's summary judgment that enforced their $3 million promissory note guaranty in favor of Business Bank of Texas, N.A., and dismissed their tort claims. The guarantors argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment due to contract defenses like fraudulent inducement and mutual mistake, and affirmative counterclaims including fraud and tortious interference. The appellate court found the guarantors lacked standing for some counterclaims and failed to raise fact issues for others and their defenses. The court also reviewed a permanent anti-suit injunction issued by the trial court, concluding it was an abuse of discretion as the circumstances did not warrant such extraordinary relief. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment on the guaranties and counterclaims, but modified it to dissolve the anti-suit injunction.

Guaranty enforcementPromissory noteSummary judgment appealFraudulent inducementNegligent misrepresentationMutual mistakeEquitable estoppelTortious interferenceNegligence claimsGross negligence claims
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GAB Business Services, Inc. v. Moore

Sherry Moore, an employee of the City of Marshall, suffered a work-related injury in January 1987. Although GAB Business Services, the insurance adjuster, initially paid for some medical expenses, they denied weekly workers' compensation benefits for her back injury, claiming it was from a separate incident at home. Moore successfully appealed to the Industrial Accident Board and later won a bench trial, which found her back injury compensable and led to a lawsuit against GAB, the City, and the Risk Pool for bad faith and deceptive trade practices. A jury found in favor of Moore against GAB for $25,000 in actual damages and $75,000 in exemplary damages. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment against GAB, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings that GAB acted in bad faith by denying the claim without a reasonable basis, and engaged in unfair practices, causing Moore mental anguish damages. The court also rejected GAB's defenses of governmental and official immunity and upheld the trial court's evidentiary rulings.

Workers' Compensation ClaimsInsurance Bad FaithDeceptive Trade Practices ActSufficiency of EvidenceMental Anguish DamagesGovernmental ImmunityOfficial ImmunityIndependent ContractorJury InstructionsEvidentiary Rulings
References
17
Case No. 14-17-00207-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2018

Landry's, Inc. and Houston Aquarium, Inc. v. Animal Legal Defense Fund, Carney Anne Nasser, and Cheryl Conley

This appeal arises from the dismissal of a case under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA). Appellants Landry’s, Inc. and Houston Aquarium, Inc. sued Appellees Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Carney Anne Nasser, and Cheryl Conley for defamation, business disparagement, tortious interference, abuse of process, trespass, and conspiracy, related to statements about the care of four white tigers. The court affirmed the dismissal of all claims, finding that the judicial-proceedings privilege applied to the alleged defamatory statements and that Landry’s failed to establish a prima facie case for its other claims or requests for declaratory and injunctive relief. While upholding the dismissal, the court modified the judgment to remove certain conditional appellate attorney's fees and suggested a remittitur for the sanctions awarded to ALDF and Conley, deeming the initial amounts excessive for deterrence.

Texas Citizens Participation ActDefamationBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceAbuse of ProcessTrespassCivil ConspiracyEndangered Species ActJudicial Proceedings PrivilegeAttorney Immunity
References
69
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. 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. 02 Civ. 7659(SAS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. NYC Transit Auth.

This case involves a dispute between several labor unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary regarding the legality of NYCTA's sick leave policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unions challenged the policy's medical inquiry requirements, arguing they violated ADA provisions against inquiries that may reveal a disability. The NYCTA justified its policy by citing the need to curb sick leave abuse and ensure workplace and public safety. The court applied the framework established in Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services. It found that curbing sick leave abuse was a legitimate business necessity but only justified the policy for employees on a narrowly-defined "sick leave control list." The court also determined that ensuring safety was a vital business necessity, justifying the policy for safety-sensitive employees, specifically bus operators, but required further factual development for other employee groups. Ultimately, the court issued a declaratory judgment, clarifying the permissible scope of the policy's medical inquiries and rejecting the Authority's defenses of unclean hands and laches.

ADA ComplianceSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiryEmployment DiscriminationBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyPublic SafetyLabor Union LitigationCollective BargainingBus Operator
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wausau Business Insurance v. Horizon Administrative Services LLC

Wausau Business Insurance Company sued multiple defendants, including Horizon Administrative Services LLC, alleging failure to pay outstanding premiums for two Workers Compensation and Employers Liability Insurance policies. Defendants counterclaimed and asserted an affirmative defense, arguing that Wausau's negligent handling of workers' compensation claims increased their policy premiums. Wausau moved to dismiss the counterclaim and strike the affirmative defense, contending they are not cognizable under New York law. Defendants conceded this for New York but argued Pennsylvania and Delaware law should apply. The court applied New York's choice of law analysis, determining that New York law should govern all defendants and policies due to the majority of insureds and the first named insured being in New York, and policies being issued there. Consequently, the court granted Wausau's motion, dismissing the defendants' counterclaim and striking their affirmative defense.

Choice of LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissAffirmative DefenseWorkers' Compensation InsuranceInsurance Policy PremiumsNegligent Claims HandlingNew York LawPennsylvania LawDelaware Law
References
25
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. ADJ10738865, ADJ13719149
Regular
Feb 16, 2023

MICHAEL GARCIA vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied applicant Michael Garcia's petition for removal challenging a WCJ's order to set trial for defendant Southern California Edison to present witness Carol Wood. Garcia argued the witness was not disclosed prior to the initial trial and that Labor Code section 5502(d)(3) barred her testimony. The Board found no irreparable harm or substantial prejudice, noting the order complied with prior WCAB instructions to further develop the record on Garcia's discrimination claim and Edison's business necessity defense. This action allows Edison to present its defense, which the Board previously indicated needed to be fully explored.

Labor Code section 132aPetition for RemovalWCABWCJsubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmbusiness necessities defensedisclosure of witnessesMSCstipulation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,816 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