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. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

What Happened in Felix vs. Weber Metals Reconsideration?

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. 03-01-00631-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2002

How Did the WCAB Rule in Hardgrove vs. Intercon Security?

Everest National Insurance Company (Everest) sought reimbursement from the Subsequent Injury Fund for overpaid workers' compensation benefits after district court judgments reversed prior agency decisions. The Fund denied a portion of the requested amount, leading Everest to file a declaratory judgment suit in district court. The district court dismissed the suit, citing lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to Everest's alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Texas Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that Everest was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because the Fund had previously stated no such remedies existed. The appellate court found Everest was authorized to bring a direct suit for declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act to enforce the Fund's statutory obligation, remanding the case for a decision on the merits.

Workers' CompensationInsurance ReimbursementSubsequent Injury FundAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesSubject-Matter JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationTexas Court of AppealsJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. 03-09-00635-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

What Did the WCAB Decide in Cuadra vs. Community Home Care?

Javier Marquez's racehorses were disqualified and their race purse redistributed due to inadvertently wearing incorrect saddle cloth numbers, a violation of commission rules. Marquez appealed the stewards' decision to the Texas Racing Commission, but the executive director, Charla Ann King, denied the appeal, citing a provision of the Texas Racing Act that deemed such decisions final. Marquez then filed a suit against the Commission and King, seeking declaratory relief. The trial court denied relief under the Administrative Procedure Act but granted it under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, declaring that King exceeded her statutory authority by denying the appeal and by disqualifying the horses and redistributing the purse. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed that the director exceeded her authority by refusing the administrative appeal, but vacated and dismissed the trial court's rulings on the disqualification and purse redistribution, holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction until Marquez exhausted his administrative remedies. The court also affirmed a reduced award of attorney's fees.

Racing ActAdministrative LawDeclaratory JudgmentSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimAdministrative AppealHorse RacingDisqualificationPurse RedistributionSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
20
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

How Were Death Benefits Handled in Bocanegra vs. Sun-Gro Commodities?

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Can a WCJ Be Disqualified for Appearance of Bias?

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

What Were the Key Rulings in Torrez vs. SuperShuttle?

The City of Arlington sought judicial review of a Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission (TWCC) decision and later pursued reimbursement from the TWCC Subsequent Injury Fund. Following the TWCC's refusal to reimburse, the City moved for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus against the TWCC executive director and the Subsequent Injury Fund administrator. The City argued that the Texas Supreme Court had exclusive jurisdiction over the TWCC executive director. However, the Court, referencing prior case law, concluded that it did not possess exclusive mandamus jurisdiction over these officials. Consequently, the motion for leave was overruled, without prejudice to the City's right to seek mandamus relief in a lower court.

MandamusJurisdictionWorkers' CompensationState OfficersExecutive DepartmentReimbursementSubsequent Injury FundTexas Supreme CourtAppellate ProcedureOriginal Proceeding
References
3
Case No. 03-14-00396-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2015

Why Was Removal Denied in Rush vs. California Correctional Institution?

The Texas Board of Chiropractic Examiners (TBCE) and its Executive Director, Yvette Yarbrough, are appealing a decision from the Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas. They have filed a motion for panel rehearing and/or en banc rehearing. The appellants argue that the Court's previous memorandum opinion contains three fundamental errors: misstating appellate issues, resolving subject-matter jurisdiction using a prohibited method, and misstating the administrative rule at issue. They contend that the Court misunderstood their challenge to the trial court's jurisdiction regarding the Texas Medical Association's (TMA) claim to invalidate a provision of the Scope of Practice Rule (22 Tex. Admin. Code § 75.17(d)(1)) concerning chiropractors' authority to "diagnose" diseases. TBCE asserts that this claim is a collateral attack on a prior judgment in TMA I where the same issue was litigated and decided in TBCE's favor. They argue that subject-matter jurisdiction should be decided on a claim-by-claim basis and that the Court erred in its interpretation of the administrative rule number. They are requesting an opportunity for oral argument due to the significance of the issues for chiropractic practice in Texas.

Workers' CompensationChiropractic Scope of PracticeMedical AssociationCollateral AttackSubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative LawRule InvalidationTexas LawAppellate ProcedureMotion for Rehearing
References
6
Case No. 14-18-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2020

What Did the WCAB Clarify in Ontiveros vs. Savers Stores?

Three doctors, Patino, Wilson, and Craighead, appealed the dismissal of their claims against the Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers’ Compensation and other state entities. The doctors were excluded from the state's workers' compensation approved doctor list between 2004 and 2007, leading to administrative penalties and a subsequent lawsuit. The trial court dismissed their claims for lack of jurisdiction, asserting immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims challenging final agency orders due to unexhausted administrative remedies and collateral attack immunity. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the doctors' constitutional challenges to the Workers’ Compensation Act and ultra vires claims against the Commissioner, concluding these claims were properly pleaded and not barred by sovereign immunity.

Physician ExclusionAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityUltra Vires ClaimsConstitutional ChallengeDue Process RightsProfessional LicensingGovernment RegulationTexas Labor Code
References
24
Case No. 03-15-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

Why Was Reconsideration Denied in Gomez vs. Dorothy Stevens?

This case involves an appeal filed by Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi of America, Inc. (Appellants) against John Walker III, Chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board, and Administrative Law Judges Michael J. O'Malley and Penny A. Wilkov (Appellees). Appellants sought injunctive relief in district court to prevent Appellees from proceeding with an allegedly ultra vires remand of an administrative contested case after a Proposal for Decision (PFD) had been issued. The district court dismissed the lawsuit based on governmental immunity and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Appellants argue that Appellees' actions, including ordering the remand and reopening evidence, exceeded their statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act and Texas Occupations Code, making governmental immunity inapplicable and exhaustion of remedies unnecessary.

Administrative LawUltra Vires ActsGovernmental ImmunityExhaustion of RemediesJudicial ReviewAgency AuthorityState Office of Administrative HearingsRemandContested CasesStatutory Interpretation
References
31
Case No. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Why Was Reconsideration Dismissed in Sabino vs. Johnson Pump Company?

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Showing 1-10 of 5,937 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