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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutera v. Transportation Security Administration

Plaintiff Leonard Sutera, a Lead Transportation Security Officer, was terminated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) after two urine samples tested positive for marijuana. Sutera alleged that he inadvertently inhaled secondhand smoke and that his termination violated his due process and privacy rights under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. He sought reinstatement, back pay, and damages. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, determining that Sutera's constitutional claims were barred by sovereign immunity or lacked merit. The court found that the termination procedures were constitutionally adequate and dismissed claims under the Privacy Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

Due ProcessPrivacy ActAdministrative Procedure ActSovereign ImmunitySummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationDrug TestingFederal EmployeesConstitutional LawSecondhand Smoke
References
55
Case No. M2014-01073-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2015

Administrative Management Resources, LLC v. James G. Neeley

Administrative Management Resources, LLC (AMR) appealed a decision affirming that it engaged in SUTA dumping by illegally transferring employees between commonly owned entities to obtain lower unemployment insurance premium rates. The Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development, represented by James G. Neeley, had assessed significant penalties against AMR. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Nashville affirmed the chancery court's decision, finding substantial and material evidence supported the Department's determination that AMR knowingly violated the Tennessee Employment Security Law. The court also rejected AMR's arguments regarding the Department's authority to aggregate accounts and its due process claims concerning notice and procedural fairness during the administrative hearing.

SUTA dumpingunemployment insurancepremium rate manipulationemployee transfersTennessee Employment Security Lawadministrative decision reviewappellate affirmationcommon ownershipdue processstatutory violation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Reich

Plaintiffs, migrant workers, sued the Department of Labor (DOL) and other federal agencies, alleging violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the Wagner-Peysner Act. They contended that the DOL unlawfully approved alien labor certification applications, specifically for tree planters hired by Frank Stanley. Plaintiffs argued that tree planters should be classified as agricultural workers, subject to more comprehensive protections under Subparts B and C of 20 C.F.R. § 655, rather than the less stringent procedures of Subpart A and the General Administration Letters. The court addressed the defendants' mootness argument, ruling that the case was capable of repetition yet evading review despite an earlier settlement with Stanley. Ultimately, the court found that tree planters are not agricultural workers under Part 655 and concluded that the DOL did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by applying different procedures for non-agricultural workers.

Administrative Procedures ActImmigration and Nationality ActWagner-Peysner ActAlien Labor CertificationMigrant WorkersTemporary Foreign WorkersAgricultural EmploymentNon-Agricultural EmploymentSummary JudgmentMootness Doctrine
References
11
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Templeton v. Veterans Administration

The plaintiff, a probationary federal employee, filed a pro se complaint against the Veterans Administration’s Medical Center, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and challenging his discharge on other grounds. The court found venue improper for the discrimination claim, noting it should be in California or Missouri based on statutory provisions. For the non-discrimination claim, the court determined the plaintiff failed to show procedural defects or arbitrary action in his dismissal, as the VA followed established regulations and provided rational bases for termination. Consequently, the non-discrimination claim was dismissed, and the discrimination claim was transferred to the Central District of California due to improper venue.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIFederal EmploymentVenueProbationary EmployeeWrongful DischargeDue ProcessProperty InterestLiberty InterestAdministrative Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. Texas Department of Insurance

Hernandez, an insurance agent, had her license revoked by the Commissioner of Insurance. Her timely motion for rehearing was overruled by operation of law on January 16, 1995, after the Commissioner failed to act within 45 days. Hernandez filed for judicial review on March 3, 1995, after receiving a late notification. The trial court dismissed her petition as untimely. On appeal, Hernandez argued the agency had a duty to notify her of the motion being overruled by operation of law. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, holding the Administrative Procedure Act does not require such notice, thus rendering Hernandez's petition for judicial review untimely.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewTimelinessMotion for RehearingOperation of LawNotice RequirementAppellate ProcedureJurisdictionStatutory InterpretationInsurance Agent
References
10
Case No. 07-07-0039-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2008

Johnny Rodriguez v. Icon Benefit Administrators, Inc.

This is a dissenting opinion challenging a summary judgment granted in favor of ICON Benefit Administrators, Inc. The appellant, Johnny Rodriguez, Jr., had his initial claims against ICON dismissed with prejudice due to a procedural misstep (failure to obtain leave of court to add ICON as a defendant), which was affirmed on appeal. Subsequently, Rodriguez filed a new lawsuit against ICON, asserting similar and new claims. ICON successfully argued for summary judgment based on the doctrine of res judicata. The dissenting justice contends that the previous dismissal was not a judgment on the merits, thus res judicata should not apply, and due process rights were denied. The dissent would reverse the summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentRes JudicataClaim PreclusionIssue PreclusionCollateral EstoppelDismissal With PrejudiceProcedural DismissalDue ProcessAppellate ReviewFinal Judgment
References
16
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 8,384 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