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

Hector Garza v. Zachry Construction Corporation, Zachry Industrial, Inc., Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez

Hector Garza, a DuPont operator, was injured in a railcar accident involving Zachry Construction Corp. employees, Gilbert Morales and Anthony Rodriguez. Garza received workers' compensation benefits from DuPont and subsequently sued Zachry, Morales, and Rodriguez for negligence. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that Garza's claims were barred by the workers' compensation exclusive remedy under Texas Labor Code section 408.001, which applies to subcontractors via section 406.128. The trial court granted a take-nothing summary judgment. On appeal, Garza argued that Zachry's employees were not DuPont's "deemed employees" for exclusive remedy purposes and that applying the bar violated the Texas Constitution's open courts provision. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that the contract between DuPont and Zachry did not negate the "deemed employer" status for workers' compensation purposes and that the workers' compensation benefits constituted an adequate quid pro quo for the relinquishment of common-law claims, thus not violating the open courts guarantee.

Workers' Compensation ImmunityExclusive Remedy BarSubcontractor LiabilityTexas Open Courts ProvisionLabor Code InterpretationSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimsDeemed Employer StatusFellow Employee DoctrineContractual Agreement
References
19
Case No. 2015-2418 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2018

Remedial Med. Care, P.C. v. Park Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Civil Court concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant, Park Insurance Co., sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint filed by Remedial Medical Care, P.C., as assignee of Thomas Brown. The Civil Court initially denied the motion but found that the defendant had established timely mailing of denials. The Appellate Term modified the order, granting summary judgment to the defendant for a bill of services rendered on August 23, 2012, as it was paid according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. However, for the remaining bills, the defendant failed to prove timely mailing of IME scheduling letters, thus failing to demonstrate that the IMEs were properly scheduled or that the assignor failed to appear. Therefore, the denial of summary judgment for the remaining claims was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentNo-Fault BenefitsIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Timely MailingWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermCivil CourtDenial of ClaimFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ1611115 (STK 0117929)
Regular
Jul 25, 2016

THERESA POLLEX vs. CRESTWOOD HOSPITAL, FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because it was taken from a non-final, interlocutory procedural order. The Board also denied the Petition for Removal, finding no showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm that would necessitate this extraordinary remedy. The WCJ's report, which the Board adopted, adequately addressed the issues, and reconsideration remains an adequate remedy should a final adverse decision issue later. Therefore, the Board ordered the dismissal of reconsideration and denial of removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary Remedy
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Board of Insurance v. Williams

The State Board of Insurance, as Relator, sought a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Mary Pearl Williams to reverse her order denying pleas in abatement, a motion to show authority, and a motion to dismiss in an underlying case where Jim Mattox, the Attorney General, had sued the Board over workers' compensation rates. The Board contended that the Attorney General lacked standing to sue them, as he is constitutionally and statutorily mandated to represent state agencies. However, the court denied the motion for leave to file the petition for writ of mandamus, concluding that the Board possessed an adequate remedy through appeal, despite arguments about inconvenience and needless expenditure. The court reiterated that mandamus is reserved for instances of clear abuse of discretion where no other adequate legal remedy exists.

MandamusWrit of MandamusInterlocutory OrderAdequate Remedy by AppealAbuse of DiscretionStandingAttorney GeneralWorkers' Compensation RatesTravis CountyTexas Civil Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valero Transmission Co. v. Mitchell Energy Corp.

Valero Transmission Company appealed a temporary injunction requiring it to purchase gas from Mitchell Energy Corporation per their contract. The trial court found Valero breached the contract, leading to drainage from Mitchell's leases and potential loss of 11 leases. Valero contended the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, that the injunction was an abuse of discretion due to illegality, lack of irreparable harm, and the availability of an adequate remedy at law, and that a force majeure event excused performance. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, overruling Valero's contentions by finding the trial court had jurisdiction, the injunction was not illegal or an abuse of discretion, and Mitchell had demonstrated probable irreparable harm without an adequate legal remedy. Furthermore, the court determined that an economic downturn did not qualify as an unforeseeable event under the force majeure clause and that the injunction appropriately preserved the status quo.

Temporary InjunctionBreach of ContractGas Purchase AgreementMarket DemandForce MajeureIrreparable HarmAdequate Remedy at LawJurisdictionTexas Railroad CommissionOil and Gas Law
References
27
Case No. 03-98-00109-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 1998

Bob Lewallen, Individually and D/B/A Southwest Rubber Industries v. Barry Jarma, Individually and D/B/A Jarma Industries

This case involves an appeal from a district court's order granting a temporary injunction. Appellant Bob Lewallen sought to remove manufacturing equipment from the premises of appellee Barry Jarma, who had performed repairs on it and used it to produce goods. Jarma filed suit, asserting a lien on the equipment or a claim of co-ownership, and obtained a temporary injunction preventing Lewallen from removing the equipment. Lewallen appealed, arguing that Jarma failed to establish a probable right to recovery (due to untimely lien filing and lack of partnership evidence) and that Jarma had an adequate remedy at law. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that Jarma demonstrated a probable right to recover on his lien claim and that the evidence supported a finding of imminent, irreparable injury without an adequate remedy at law, thus justifying the injunction to preserve the status quo.

Temporary InjunctionLien ForeclosureAppellate ReviewProbable Right to RecoveryIrreparable InjuryAbuse of DiscretionStatus QuoTexas Property CodeContract DisputeEquipment Ownership
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Campbell, Wise & Wright, Inc.

The Texas Unemployment Compensation Commission appealed a temporary injunction granted without notice by the 117th District Court of Nueces County on February 10, 1938. The injunction prevented the Commission from collecting taxes, penalties, or interest under the Texas Unemployment Compensation Act from fifty-seven appellees (vegetable and fruit shippers) and from using their private records. The appellees argued the Act was unconstitutional, their employees were exempt as agricultural laborers, or independent contractors. The appellate court, referencing the 'Stephens Case,' determined that an injunction is improper when an adequate legal remedy exists. The court found that the Commission's enforcement actions would involve regular court proceedings where the appellees could present their defense, thus providing an adequate remedy at law. The court also dismissed the argument of preventing a multiplicity of suits, as the State would likely bring a single action per taxpayer. Therefore, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and dissolved the temporary injunction.

Unemployment CompensationInjunctionsConstitutional LawAgricultural Labor ExemptionIndependent Contractor StatusAdequate Remedy at LawMultiplicity of SuitsState OfficersTaxation DisputesStatutory Interpretation
References
7
Case No. 03-15-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2015

in Re Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A ACS State Healthcare, LLC

Relators Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC seek a writ of mandamus to overturn trial court orders that struck their third-party claims and denied leave to designate responsible third parties. The underlying suit is a Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA) enforcement action by the State of Texas against Xerox for misrepresenting its prior authorization review process for orthodontia services, leading to unauthorized Medicaid payments. The State argues the TMFPA is a remedial public welfare statute, not tort-based, and therefore Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code (CPRC) on proportionate responsibility does not apply. The State asserts it seeks civil remedies and penalties from Xerox for its independent unlawful acts, not apportionable damages, and that Xerox has an adequate remedy on appeal.

Medicaid FraudTexas LawMandamusCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationState EnforcementPrior AuthorizationHealthcare LitigationTort LawProportionate Responsibility
References
98
Case No. 09-08-00367-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Philip J. Pohl v. Polunsky Unit

Philip J. Pohl appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court addressed his contentions regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies, similarity of claims to previous lawsuits, the trial court's failure to grant leave to file, and the frivolity and legal basis of his claims. The court found that Pohl failed to comply with Section 14.005 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code regarding exhaustion of remedies and that his motion to waive court costs under Section 14.011 was not sufficiently supported by an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court also found that Pohl did not provide adequate legal authority or analysis to support his claims, thus overruling his issues regarding frivolity and arguable basis in law. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Inmate litigationExhaustion of administrative remediesFrivolous claimsInjunctive reliefPrison Litigation Reform ActPLRATexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeChapter 14Chapter 41Res judicata
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re American Casualty Co. of Reading, Pennsylvania

American Casualty Company sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Gene Knize to set aside an order lifting an abatement and permitting discovery in an underlying suit. Belinda Parker-Jett and her husband Tim had previously sued American Casualty in 2003 for improper delay/denial of workers' compensation benefits, and that suit was abated in 2004 pending administrative remedies. In 2007, Judge Knize lifted the abatement specifically for discovery purposes, despite the administrative remedies not being fully exhausted. The appellate court determined that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction until administrative remedies were exhausted, concluding that Judge Knize abused his discretion by lifting the abatement. The Court conditionally granted the mandamus, noting that American Casualty had no adequate remedy by appeal and would be deprived of the benefits of the workers' compensation system.

MandamusAbatementSubject Matter JurisdictionWorkers' CompensationAdministrative RemediesDiscoveryAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Litigation
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,495 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