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. 15-25-00061-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2025

Francisca Okonkwo, Administrative Law Judge, Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, in Her Official Capacity and Fort Bend County v. Joshua David Heiliger, Individually, and on Behalf of the Estate of Lauren Brittane Smith, and on Behalf of Death Benefits Beneficiaries Joshua David Heiliger and Emma Destiny Heiliger

Fort Bend County appeals a temporary injunction granted by a Harris County District Court, which prevents discovery of mental health records in an ongoing workers' compensation dispute. The underlying administrative case involves a claim for death benefits by Joshua Heiliger, whose spouse, Lauren Brittane Smith, was a paramedic. Heiliger asserts Smith's mental health condition and stress contributed to her death, thus placing her mental health at issue. The Division of Workers' Compensation's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a subpoena for Smith's mental health records from her psychiatrist, Dr. John Marcellus. Heiliger bypassed the administrative process by obtaining the injunction in District Court. Fort Bend County argues the District Court erred in interfering with the Division's exclusive jurisdiction and that Heiliger failed to exhaust administrative remedies or demonstrate irreparable injury, as Texas law provides a qualified privilege for mental health records with exceptions relevant to this case.

Workers' CompensationTemporary InjunctionDiscovery DisputeMental Health RecordsSubpoena EnforcementAdministrative Law JudgeExclusive JurisdictionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesQualified PrivilegePatient-Litigant Exception
References
53
Case No. 03-15-00285-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2015

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. And Audi of America, Inc. v. John Walker III, in His Official Capacity as Chairman of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles Board The Honorable Michael J. O'Malley, the Honorable Penny A. Wilkov, in Their Official Capacities as Administrative Law Judges for the State Office

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. 14-18-00274-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2020

Dr. Louis Patino, D.C. Dr. Stephen Wilson, M.D. And Dr. Gary Craighead, D.C. v. Texas Department of Insurance-Division of Workers' Compensation Commissioner Cassandra J. Brown and Dr. Donald Patrick, in Their Official and Individual Capacities State Office of Administrative Hearings, Texas Chief Administrative Law Judge Cathleen Parsley in Her Official Capacity Tommy Broyles, in His Official Capacity The State of Texas And the Attorney General of the State of Texas

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. ADJ 4252592 (VNO 0411668)ADJ 3234790 (VNO 0443319) (MF)
Regular
May 04, 2012

HARRY WINSTON vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

This case concerns a petition for reconsideration by the City of Los Angeles challenging the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) finding of a single cumulative trauma injury. The applicant stipulated to two separate cumulative trauma periods for various injuries, but subsequent medical opinions from treating physicians concluded there was one continuous cumulative trauma injury spanning the applicant's entire employment. The ALJ amended the stipulations to align with this medical evidence and dismissed one of the applicant's cases as duplicative. Therefore, the ALJ recommends denying the employer's petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryAmended FindingsOpinion on DecisionStipulationsMedical EvaluationQualified Medical EvaluationAgreed Medical EvaluationDate of Injury
References
10
Case No. ADJ1936318
Regular
Jun 17, 2013

JUAN RIVERA vs. MORROW CABLE, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision. The ALJ recommended dismissal or denial of the petition due to improper verification by the defendant's attorney. The central issue was the necessity and reasonableness of a $165 lien for an interpreter to translate a Compromise and Release document for a Spanish-speaking applicant. The ALJ found such interpretation reasonable and necessary to protect both parties, rejecting the defendant's argument that the applicant's attorney speaking Spanish negated this need.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationWCJUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902CCP 446VerificationDismissalLienLogos Language
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Law v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Sherdic Law challenged the Commissioner of Social Security’s denial of Social Security Income disability benefits, alleging disability due to various impairments including chronic leg pain, lower back pain, hepatitis C, and hyperthyroidism. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied Law's claim, finding he could perform sedentary work. U.S. District Judge Mukasey vacated the SSA's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court found that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the administrative record regarding Law’s chronic leg pain, specifically omitting to obtain and review his EMG report despite objective medical evidence and Law’s testimony. This failure resulted in Law not receiving a full and fair hearing.

Social Security IncomeDisability BenefitsChronic Leg PainHerniated DiscHepatitis CHyperthyroidismHypertensionLumbar SpineAdministrative Law JudgeRemand
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrish v. Berryhill

Plaintiff Aaron Ray Parrish sought judicial review of an adverse final decision by the Social Security Administration Commissioner regarding his claim for disability insurance benefits. Parrish argued that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) failed to consider all evidence, particularly concerning his mental health limitations (affective, anxiety, and personality disorders) when determining his residual functional capacity. The Commissioner contended that the ALJ's decision was supported by substantial evidence and conformed to applicable law. The Court, presided over by United States Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy, found that it could not ascertain what evidence the ALJ considered at step three of the disability evaluation process, specifically regarding Parrish's difficulties in social functioning and concentration, persistence, or pace. The record did not sufficiently establish that the ALJ considered all relevant evidence, leading to a lack of substantial evidence to support the step three finding. Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the case was remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Social SecurityDisability BenefitsSummary JudgmentRemandAdministrative Law JudgeAppeals CouncilMental ImpairmentPhysical ImpairmentPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderDepression
References
18
Case No. 04-12-00681-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2013

the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings v. Carol Birch, Charles Homer, Ann Landeros and Carol Wood

This is an interlocutory appeal concerning the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction filed by the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) in a wrongful termination case. Former Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) Carol Birch, Charles Homer, Ann Landeros, and Carol Wood sued SOAH, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) and common law wrongful termination. The SOAH appealed the trial court's denial of its pleas to the jurisdiction, arguing the ALJs failed to provide prima facie evidence for their claims, thus negating sovereign immunity waiver. The appellate court affirmed the denial of SOAH's plea for Wood's and Birch's age and gender discrimination claims, and Birch's retaliation claim for seeking accommodation due to sufficient evidence. However, the court reversed and rendered judgment dismissing all claims by Landeros and Homer, Wood's retaliation claim, Birch's disability discrimination claim, and Birch's retaliation claim related to speaking out against disparate treatment, due to insufficient evidence.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionConstructive DischargeAdverse Employment ActionTexas Labor CodeTCHRAAdministrative Law Judges (ALJs)Age Discrimination
References
52
Case No. 03-14-00548-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2014

M&M Orthodontics P.A.and Harlingen Family Dentistry v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission Dr. Kyle Janek, in His Official Capacity as the Executive Commissioner of Texas Health and Human Services Commission Carole Hurley, Chief Administrative Law Judge for the Texas Health and Human Services Commiss

Appellees, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Dr. Kyle Janek, and Administrative Law Judges Carole Hurley, Keith Grantham, and Rick Gilpin, filed an unopposed joint motion requesting a 60-day extension to file their brief in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The current deadline is December 31, 2014, and the requested extension would move it to March 2, 2015. This is their first request for an extension. The primary reason for the extension is recent developments in the underlying administrative proceedings, specifically the filing of Notices of Nonsuit against Appellants, which may render the appeal moot. Appellees anticipate filing a joint motion to dismiss in the near future and require additional time to confer with Appellants and their counsel. Additionally, counsel for both the HHSC Appellees and the ALJ Appellees cited demanding litigation schedules and upcoming holiday office closures as reasons for needing more time.

Extension of TimeMootnessNonsuitAdministrative ProceedingsAppellate ProcedureTravis CountyThird Court of AppealsTexas Health and Human Services CommissionAppellees' BriefLitigation Schedule
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stafford v. Barnhart

Plaintiff Danny L. Stafford sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security Administration's decision denying his application for a closed period of disability insurance benefits, marking his second federal court appearance for this claim. The court previously remanded the case for reconsideration of new evidence. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Harry L. Williams, Jr., reconsidered and again denied the application. Plaintiff alleged legal errors by the Commissioner in evaluating medical opinions and substantial evidence errors in credibility determinations and the hypothetical question posed to the vocational expert. The court, led by District Judge Heartfield, adopted the Magistrate Judge's report, finding no legal error in the ALJ's evaluation of the treating physician's opinion and concluding any other errors were harmless. The court also determined that the ALJ's credibility findings and the hypothetical question were supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the Commissioner's decision was affirmed, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActALJ decision reviewTreating physician opinionMedical evidenceResidual functional capacityVocational expert testimonySubstantial evidenceHarmless errorChronic pain
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 22,228 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