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. 03-02-00196-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Heart Hospital IV, L.P. and Texas Workforce Commission v. Charles A. King

Charles A. King, an employee of Heart Hospital IV, L.P., was denied unemployment benefits by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) after failing a drug test. King sought judicial review, initially filing in Travis County and later refiling in Bastrop County, 125 days after the TWC's final decision. Heart Hospital and TWC challenged the refiling, arguing King missed the 14-day statutory deadline for judicial review. The district court denied TWC's plea to the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 14-day deadline in the labor code is a jurisdictional prerequisite, making the sixty-day tolling provision of section 16.064 and equitable tolling inapplicable. Consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction, and the cause was dismissed.

Unemployment BenefitsJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory DeadlinesJudicial ReviewTexas Labor CodePlea to JurisdictionTolling ProvisionsEquitable TollingCourt of AppealsAdministrative Law
References
16
Case No. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. D-3870
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 1995

Travelers Indemnity Co. of Illinois v. Fuller

Regina Fuller sued Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois and Travelers Insurance Company (collectively, "Travelers") for gross negligence, alleging their actions caused her father's death due to exposure to hazardous chemicals at American Petrofina, where Travelers was the compensation carrier and performed safety audits. Fuller argued that the Texas Constitution, Article 16, Section 26, created an independent cause of action for punitive damages, and that the Workers' Compensation Act's immunity provision was unconstitutional as it limited her right to punitive damages and violated the Open Courts Provision. The trial court granted summary judgment for Travelers, but the court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Article 16, Section 26 does not create a cause of action for punitive damages where no cause of action for compensatory damages exists, and that the Workers' Compensation Act's immunity provision is constitutional. The Court affirmed the common law requirement of actual damages for punitive damages and stated the Open Courts Provision does not apply to wrongful death actions as they did not exist at common law.

Workers' Compensation ActPunitive DamagesExemplary DamagesWrongful DeathGross NegligenceConstitutional InterpretationActual DamagesStatutory ImmunityOpen Courts ProvisionTexas Constitution
References
29
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

Stewart v. Chautauqua County Board of Elections

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glisson v. General Cinema Corp. of Texas

James E. Glisson and Dorothy Glisson appealed a summary judgment that denied them exemplary damages for the death of their son, David Anthony Glisson, who was fatally injured while employed by General Cinema Corporation of Texas. Although they received death benefits, the Glissons sought additional exemplary damages under Article 8306, Section 5 of the Texas Workmen's Compensation Law and Article 16, Section 26 of the Texas Constitution, alleging gross negligence. The trial court's summary judgment was based on the interpretation that parents are not included among the beneficiaries authorized to recover exemplary damages under these statutes. The appellate court affirmed, upholding the lower court's construction that the statutory language "heirs of his or her body" does not encompass parents, aligning with long-standing Texas precedent. The court also dismissed the Glissons' equal protection challenge, finding a rational basis for the classification of beneficiaries.

Workers' CompensationExemplary DamagesTexas ConstitutionEqual ProtectionFourteenth AmendmentSurvival StatuteWrongful Death StatuteStatutory InterpretationBeneficiary ClassHeirs of the Body
References
14
Case No. 2-08-175-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2009

Anne Boenig v. StarnAir, Inc.

Appellant Anne Boenig appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellee StarnAir, Inc. The central legal question was whether a claimant is time-barred from joining a designated responsible third party under Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 33.004(e) when the claim against that party would otherwise be barred by a statute of repose, specifically section 16.009, requiring suit within ten years of substantial completion of construction. The Court of Appeals considered whether the term 'limitations' in section 33.004(e) includes statutes of repose like section 16.009. The court found that the legislature intended section 16.009(a) to be subject to section 33.004(e)'s savings provision, concluding that otherwise time-barred claims can be asserted against a party who had constructed improvements and was previously designated as a responsible third party if joined within 60 days of designation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentStatute of ReposeStatute of LimitationsResponsible Third PartyJoinder of PartiesCivil Practice and Remedies CodeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury ClaimConstruction Liability
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1987

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Marshall

Justice Gonzalez dissents, arguing that court judgments, particularly in Workers' Compensation Act cases, should not form the basis of DTPA actions or unfair insurance practice claims. The dissent contends that an agreed judgment does not fall under the definitions of "goods" or "services" as required for a DTPA claim. Furthermore, it asserts that Article 21.21 of the Insurance Code was not intended to enforce open medical provisions in compromise settlement agreements incorporated into court judgments. The opinion emphasizes that statutes must be construed as written, and neither the McCarran-Ferguson Act nor Article 21.21 suggests its application to enforce judgments. Justice Gonzalez concludes that Marshall has remedies for breach of contract or execution on the judgment, but not under DTPA or Article 21.21, section 16 of the Insurance Code, for post-sale or post-loss conduct.

Workers' Compensation ActDTPAInsurance CodeAgreed JudgmentBreach of ContractStatutory InterpretationMcCarran-Ferguson ActOpen Medical ProvisionPost-sale conductPost-loss conduct
References
12
Case No. 04-14-00301-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2015

City of San Antonio v. Gerard Cortes

The Court previously held that collateral estoppel prevented relitigation of issues in this appeal, applying it to Gerard Cortes's case despite a prior lawsuit involving the International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 624. Cortes, the appellee, argues that the Court's previous opinion failed to recognize the procedural and substantive differences unique to his case, specifically citing Article 30, Section B of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). This section, according to Cortes, explicitly authorizes individual firefighters to bypass arbitration and proceed to district court for statutory or constitutional claims, a right not available to the Union. Cortes contends that the Court misapplied collateral estoppel by equating his individual statutory claims under Chapters 143 and 174 of the Texas Local Government Code with the Union's claims, which were subject to arbitration under a different section of the CBA (Article 30, Section A). He asserts that the issue of an individual firefighter's right to judicial review under Article 30, Section B has never been litigated.

Collateral EstoppelCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationJudicial ReviewStatutory RightsIndividual Employee ClaimsUnion GrievanceTexas Local Government Code Chapter 143Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174Firefighter Rights
References
4
Case No. No. 07-87-0137-CR
Regular Panel Decision

Grimes v. State

Judge Baird dissents from the majority's decision regarding the retroactive application of Tex.Code Crim. Proc.Ann. art. 44.29(b). He argues that the Texas Constitution's Article I, Section 16, which prohibits 'retroactive law,' is broader than the federal ex post facto clause and applies to criminal cases, not just civil matters. Baird contends that the retroactive application of Article 44.29(b) unconstitutionally deprives the appellant of a vested right to a new trial for errors in the punishment phase, a right the appellant likely relied upon for trial strategy. He also disputes the majority's assertion that the retroactive law prohibition does not apply to statutes merely affecting procedural matters, arguing that a procedural label does not immunize a law from scrutiny if it affects substantial rights. Furthermore, Baird states that Tex.Gov't Code Ann. § 311.022 mandates prospective operation unless a statute is expressly made retrospective, which is not the case for Article 44.29(b).

Ex post factoRetroactive lawTexas Constitution Article I Section 16Criminal procedurePunishment phaseVested rightsTrial strategyStatutory interpretationAppellate reviewJudicial dissent
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teel v. Shifflett

The concurring opinion by Justice Leslie B. Yates addresses the appellant, Teel's, challenge to the constitutionality of Texas Family Code sections 81.001 and 85.001. Teel argued for a right to a jury trial before a protective order is issued, citing Article V, Section 10 of the Texas Constitution. Justice Yates concurs with the majority, affirming the constitutionality of the statutes. She highlights the conflict between the 14-day hearing requirement for protective orders and the 30-day notice for jury trial requests. The opinion emphasizes the legislature's intent to ensure timely issuance of protective orders for the protection of individuals, concluding that this priority does not violate constitutional guarantees. Teel's first issue is overruled.

Texas Family CodeProtective OrdersJury TrialConstitutional LawFamily ViolenceStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewTexas Constitution Article V Section 10Texas Constitution Article I Section 15
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 6,640 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