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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Johnson

Glenda Moore sought a writ of mandamus against Judge Joe Johnson to set aside an order compelling her to undergo a physical examination by a neurosurgeon without her chiropractor present, as requested by Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA). Moore argued that Article 8307, Section 4(b) of the workers' compensation statutes, which allows a claimant to have a chiropractor present, applied to district court proceedings. TEIA contended that this statute applied only to Industrial Accident Board (IAB) proceedings, and Rule 167a of the Rules of Civil Procedure governed de novo trials, granting the court broad discretion without the restrictions of Section 4(b). The court found that Section 4(b) exclusively applied to IAB proceedings and Rule 167a controlled de novo trials. Therefore, the writ of mandamus was denied, affirming the trial court's discretion.

Workers' CompensationMandamusPhysical ExaminationMedical ExaminationTrial De NovoIndustrial Accident Board (IAB)Rules of Civil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionChiropractor Presence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ley v. Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A

Rhonda P. Ley, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, filed a petition against the Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A (Union) seeking a preliminary injunction. Ley alleged that Article XXII of the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Xerox Corporation (Employer) constituted an unlawful 'union signatory' agreement under Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, Ley claimed that the Union's continued attempts to enforce Article XXII violated Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act. The Union argued that Article XXII was a lawful work preservation provision. The Court found reasonable cause to believe the Union was violating the Act and that a preliminary injunction was just and proper to prevent further statutory violations and maintain public interest. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining the Union from enforcing Article XXII.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations ActUnion Signatory AgreementWork PreservationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingArbitrationDistrict Court
References
11
Case No. 03-02-00747-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2003

UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N v. Strayhorn

This appeal addresses a tax refund claim by United Services Automobile Association (USAA) against the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas, asserting exemption from sales and use taxes based on repealed sections of the Texas Insurance Code (former articles 4.10 and 4.11). USAA contended that these provisions, which specified 'no other tax' than a gross receipts tax, exempted them from all other state taxes not expressly provided for in the insurance code. The district court denied USAA's motion for summary judgment and granted the Comptroller's, ruling that the insurance code provisions did not exempt USAA from sales and use taxes. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court concluded that the tax exemption language in the former articles 4.10 and 4.11 was narrowly intended to replace general occupation and franchise taxes, and did not apply to later-enacted taxes of general applicability like sales and use taxes, which did not exist when the original exemptions were created.

Insurance TaxSales and Use TaxTax ExemptionStatutory ConstructionLegislative IntentTexas Insurance CodeGross Receipts TaxOccupation TaxFranchise TaxAppellate Review
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Strayhorn

This case concerns an appeal by USAA for a tax refund of sales and use taxes paid from 1994 to 1999. USAA argued that repealed sections of the Texas Insurance Code, specifically former articles 4.10 and 4.11, which contained a 'no other tax' clause, exempted them from all state taxes not expressly provided in the insurance code. The Comptroller contended that this language only applied to occupation and franchise taxes. The district court ruled in favor of the Comptroller, and the appellate court affirmed this judgment, determining that the tax exemptions in the former insurance code articles were narrowly intended to replace general occupation and franchise taxes and did not extend to later-enacted taxes of general applicability like sales and use taxes, which did not exist at the time the exemption was originally granted in 1907.

Tax exemptionStatutory interpretationSales and use taxInsurance lawLegislative intentGross receipts taxOccupation taxFranchise taxTexas taxationAppellate review
References
15
Case No. 14-08-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2010

Gregory R. Mattox and Barbara Wilkerson v. County Commissioners' Court-Grimes County, Betty Shiflett-Grimes County Judge, John Bertling-County Commissioner Pct 1., and Pam Finke-County Commissioner Pct 4

The case involves Gregory R. Mattox and Barbara Wilkerson (appellants) appealing a trial court's denial of their petition for a writ of mandamus. They sought to compel the Grimes County Commissioners Court and specific county officials (appellees) to cancel a roadway dedication on a portion of Hill Forest Lane that encroached on their property. The core dispute centers on whether the cancellation of the roadway dedication was a mandatory ministerial act under Texas Local Government Code section 232.008(e) or a discretionary act under section 232.008(h), which applies if the cancellation would prevent the interconnection of infrastructure to pending or existing development. The appellate court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the applicability of section 232.008(h), specifically concerning the existence of a "proposed interconnection" and "pending or existing development" on an adjacent property. Consequently, neither party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellees and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Roadway DedicationWrit of MandamusLocal Government CodeSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationProperty RightsSubdivision CancellationMinisterial ActDiscretionary ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tweedell v. Hochheim Prairie Farm Mutual Insurance Ass'n

This case involves independent insurance agents, John Twee-dell, Don Hicks, and Billy D. White, who sued the Hochheim Companies and their officers after their sales representative and agency contracts were terminated. The agents alleged breach of fiduciary duties, violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act (DTPA), and article 21.21 of the Insurance Code. The trial court granted summary judgment, ruling the agents lacked standing. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment on the DTPA and breach of fiduciary duties claims, concluding the agents were not "consumers" under the DTPA. However, the court reversed and remanded the summary judgment on the article 21.21 claim, holding that insurance agents, as "persons" engaged in the business of insurance, do have standing to sue for damages under article 21.21, section 4.

Insurance LawAgent TerminationDeceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA)Insurance Code Article 21.21Standing to SueSummary JudgmentBreach of Fiduciary DutyAppellate ReviewInsurance AgentsUnfair Competition Practices
References
13
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. State University

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed her CPLR article 78 petition. She sought to annul the determination of respondents, State University of New York, Upstate Medical University, to terminate her probationary employment. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court reiterated that probationary civil service employees can be dismissed for nearly any or no reason, without a right to challenge, absent a showing of bad faith or an improper reason. The burden of proving such bad faith rests with the employee, and mere assertion is insufficient to meet this burden. The court concluded the petitioner failed to sustain this burden and found the termination conformed to applicable regulations, specifically 4 NYCRR 4.5 [b] [5].

Probationary EmploymentCivil ServiceTerminationBad FaithCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentSUNYAdministrative LawEmployment Law
References
13
Case No. ADJ19747880
Regular
Oct 27, 2025

OLGA MAGANA vs. PARTNERS PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Olga Magana filed a Petition for Reconsideration challenging a Findings and Order from August 4, 2025, which determined her average weekly wage to be $445.03 using Labor Code section 4453(c)(4). She argued that section 4453(c)(1) should apply, yielding $640.00 weekly. The Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming the WCJ's decision that due to the temporary nature of Magana's employment and her inconsistent work history, section 4453(c)(4) more fairly represented her earning capacity, considering all surrounding circumstances rather than just her hours at the time of injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAverage Weekly WageLabor Code Section 4453GoytiaTemporary Agency EmploymentEarning CapacityWCJ Credibility DeterminationSan Francisco
References
6
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 6,833 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