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. 03-10-00023-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2011

the Texas Department of Transportation, and Amadeo Saenz, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Director of Texas Department of Transportation v. Sunset Transportation, Inc. MEL Transport, Inc. D/B/A Magnum Transportation And Sunset Prosper, Inc.

The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) and its executive director appealed a district court order denying their plea to the jurisdiction regarding claims by Sunset Transportation, Inc., MEL Transport, Inc. d/b/a Magnum Transportation, Inc., and Sunset Prosper, Inc. Appellants contended that the claims, brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), were barred by sovereign immunity. The court found Appellees' APA claims lacked sufficient factual pleading but allowed an opportunity to amend. However, the district court's denial of the plea concerning UDJA claims was affirmed, as some allegations invoked the ultra vires exception to sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the district court's order denying the plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative LawMotor Carrier RegulationFederal PreemptionState Agency AuthorityTransportation LawJurisdictionStatutory ConstructionRegulatory Challenge
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emery Air Freight Corp. v. General Transport Systems, Inc.

This appeal involves a breach of contract action filed by Emery Air Freight Corporation against General Transport Systems, Inc. (GTS). Emery claimed GTS failed to add them as an "additional insured" in its liability insurance policies, leading to damages after Emery was sued by a GTS employee. The central dispute was whether the contract required GTS to insure Emery against Emery's own negligence. The trial court ruled in favor of GTS, a decision affirmed by the appellate court, which found the insurance clause did not independently cover Emery's negligence but rather supported the indemnity agreement. The appellate court also upheld the award of attorneys' fees to GTS.

Breach of contractAdditional insured provisionIndemnity clauseExpress negligence ruleSummary judgmentAttorneys' feesInsurance agreementLiability insuranceRisk shiftingContract interpretation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 553, Transport Workers Union v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

Plaintiff, Local 553, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, sued defendant Eastern Air Lines, Inc., alleging violations of the Railway Labor Act. The dispute arose from Eastern's agreement to take over Braniff's Latin American routes and hire Braniff flight attendants, which the Union claimed breached their collective bargaining agreement's seniority clause. The Union argued this constituted a 'major' dispute under the RLA, requiring an injunction to preserve the status quo. The court analyzed whether the dispute was 'major' or 'minor,' the irreparable harm to the Union, and affirmative defenses raised by Eastern, including compliance with the Norris-LaGuardia Act and jurisdictional challenges. The court ultimately found the Union likely to succeed on the merits, established irreparable harm, and rejected Eastern's defenses, granting preliminary injunctive relief to the Union. Eastern was ordered to post flights for bid by seniority or compensate affected Union members.

Labor DisputeRailway Labor ActPreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementSeniority RightsStatus QuoAirline IndustryForeign NationalsInternational RoutesNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
38
Case No. 18-0216
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2020

Texas Mutual Insurance Company, Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company, Tasb Risk Management Fund, Transportation Insurance Company, Truck Insurance Exchange, Twin City Fire Insurance Company, Valley Forge Insurance Company v. Phi Air Medical, LLC

This concurring opinion addresses whether the Texas Workers' Compensation Act is shielded from federal preemption by the McCarran–Ferguson Act. The core issue is whether the Texas Act, which dictates how insurance carriers pay claimants like air-ambulance services, constitutes the 'business of insurance.' Justice Bland argues that the Act was indeed enacted for regulating the business of insurance, particularly given Texas's reliance on private insurers for workers' compensation. Therefore, its provisions should be protected from federal encroachment, leading to the reversal of the court of appeals' judgment.

McCarran-Ferguson ActFederal PreemptionState Insurance RegulationTexas Workers' Compensation ActBusiness of InsuranceAir-ambulance ServicesInsurance CarriersPolicyholder RiskThird-Party BeneficiaryAntitrust Exemption
References
19
Case No. A-16-CA-060-SS
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2019

Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Sullivan

This case addresses whether the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts provisions of the Texas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA) that regulate the reimbursement rates for air ambulance services. Plaintiff Air Evac EMS, Inc. argued that the TWCA's restrictions on its charges for services to workers' compensation patients are preempted by the ADA. The State Defendants (Texas Commissioner of Insurance and Texas Commissioner of Workers' Compensation) and Intervenor Defendants (multiple workers' compensation insurers) contended against preemption, citing a presumption against federal interference with state police powers and the McCarran-Ferguson Act. The court found that the ADA's preemption provision, which broadly prohibits state laws related to an air carrier's prices, routes, or services, applies to the TWCA's compensation scheme for air ambulance providers. Furthermore, the court determined that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not shield the TWCA provisions because they regulate the 'business of insurance companies' rather than the 'business of insurance.' As a result, the court granted Air Evac's motion for summary judgment, denied the defendants' motions, and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the State Defendants from enforcing the challenged TWCA provisions against Air Evac.

Airline Deregulation ActTexas Workers' Compensation ActFederal PreemptionAir Ambulance ServicesPrice RegulationMcCarran-Ferguson ActSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentPermanent InjunctionWorkers' Compensation Insurance
References
49
Case No. No. 05-11-01377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

Noell, David W., City of Carrollton, Carrollton Property Standards Board, Crow-Billingsley Air Park, LTD, Henry Billingsley v. Air Park Common Area Preservation Association, Chad Maisel, Amy Eklund, and Dale Burgdorf

This case involves a dispute between homeowners of Air Park Dallas, a residential airpark community, and a real estate developer (Crow-Billingsley Air Park, Ltd. and Henry Billingsley), the Air Park Zoning Committee, and the City of Carrollton. The homeowners sued after the City ordered the airpark’s airport closed following its annexation of a portion of the airport and the passage of a regulating ordinance. The trial court initially found the ordinance facially valid but the closure order invalid, granting declaratory and injunctive relief to homeowners against the City and against the developer for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with easements. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the closure order but reversed the finding that the ordinance was facially valid, remanding claims concerning its constitutionality. The court also affirmed most of the jury’s findings against the developer and Zoning Committee, modifying only a specific part of the injunction.

Property RightsZoning OrdinanceEasementsBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyMunicipal LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineAirport Regulation
References
92
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. 2015-08-0509
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2016

Kelly, Thomas v. Catmur Development Co.

This expedited hearing addressed employee Thomas Kelly's claim for medical benefits for emergency air transport and attorney fees against employer Catmur Development Co. and its insurer, Builders Mutual Insurance Co. Mr. Kelly suffered a severe workplace injury, severing his left thumb, which necessitated an air ambulance transfer for attempted replantation surgery. Catmur denied payment for the air transport based on a utilization review, despite the Bureau's Medical Director overturning this denial. The Court, asserting its authority to independently review medical necessity, found Mr. Kelly was likely to prevail. Consequently, the Court ordered Catmur to cover the $52,900 air ambulance bill and granted a 20% attorney's fee lien on this payment.

Medical BenefitsAttorney FeesExpedited HearingAir Ambulance TransportUtilization Review DenialMedical Necessity DisputeThumb InjuryReplantation SurgeryShelby CountyJudge Jim Umsted
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PHI Air Med., LLC v. Tex. Mut. Ins. Co.

This case concerns PHI Air Medical, LLC's dispute with various insurers over reimbursement rates for air ambulance services for workers' compensation in Texas. The central issue is whether the Airline Deregulation Act (ADA) preempts state laws and rules that regulate these rates. The court concludes that the ADA indeed preempts these state provisions because they relate to the price of an air carrier's services. Furthermore, the court found that the McCarran-Ferguson Act does not "reverse-preempt" the ADA, as the state regulations primarily aim to control insurers' costs rather than regulate the "business of insurance" itself. Consequently, the trial court's judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the finding that the state's rate-setting provisions are preempted.

Airline Deregulation ActPreemptionAir Ambulance ServicesWorkers' CompensationReimbursement RatesMcCarran-Ferguson ActInsurance RegulationState LawFederal LawTexas Labor Code
References
31
Case No. 04-22-00450-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2024

Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. v. Plains Marketing, L.P., Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Plains Pipeline, L.P.

This appellate case reviews a trial court's order imposing monetary sanctions against Reynolds Energy Transport, LLC and Reynolds Transportation, Inc. (Appellants) in favor of Plains Marketing, L.P.; Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.; and Plains Pipeline, L.P. (Appellees). The sanctions, totaling $482,895.92, were levied under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for alleged groundless pleadings, false testimony, and discovery abuses. The appellate court found that the trial court abused its discretion, concluding that many findings lacked evidentiary support, were conclusory, or addressed matters not properly raised in the sanctions motion. The court further determined that Appellees failed to overcome the presumption of good faith regarding Appellants' filings. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's sanctions order, rendering judgment that Appellees take nothing on their motion.

SanctionsAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewTexas Civil Procedure Rule 13Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 10Groundless ClaimsBad FaithDiscovery AbuseSummary JudgmentDue Process
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 1,592 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