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. 13-10-00016-CV, 13-10-00023-CV, 13-10-00059-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Cascos v. Cameron County Attorney

This case consolidates three interlocutory appeals primarily involving a dispute between the Cameron County Commissioners Court and the Cameron County Attorney. Appellants, comprising county officials and attorneys, challenged trial court orders that granted a temporary restraining order and a temporary injunction against them, favoring the County Attorney, and denied their plea to the jurisdiction. The appellate court conditionally granted the appellants' petition for writ of mandamus, ensuring their right to supersede the temporary injunction during appeal. While dismissing an appeal regarding the temporary restraining orders as moot, the court ultimately dissolved the temporary injunction and reversed the trial court's judgment. The court concluded that the Commissioners Court possesses implied powers to manage county business and employ legal counsel, and the County Attorney does not hold an exclusive right to represent the county in all civil matters, thereby finding the trial court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.

Interlocutory AppealMandamusTemporary InjunctionGovernmental Entity DisputeCounty Attorney DutiesCommissioners Court AuthorityDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory InterpretationRes JudicataMootness Doctrine
References
106
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Insurance Co. of North America v. Stuebing

This case involves a dispute between an injured worker's attorneys and the Insurance Company of North America (INA), the insurer under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act, concerning attorney's fees. INA had paid benefits to Mrs. Joseph C. Stuebing and later joined her attorneys, Cantey, Hanger, Gooch, Munn & Collins, to recover common law damages from a third-party tort-feasor. The third-party suit was settled for $100,000, with INA receiving $34,090.21, its full subrogated amount. The trial court awarded $5,500 in attorney's fees against INA, which INA appealed, arguing the award was excessive or unwarranted given that the settlement amount was initially offered before the attorneys' involvement. The appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment due to insufficient evidence regarding the value of the attorneys' time, while otherwise upholding the principle that an insurer can be liable for a portion of the employee's attorney's fees under certain circumstances.

Attorney's FeesWorkers' Compensation ActSubrogation RightsThird-Party Tort-feasorInsufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandSettlement AgreementContingent FeeInsurance Carrier
References
1
Case No. 14-00-01459-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2002

Deutsch, George v. Hoover, Bax & Slovacek, L.L.P.

The dispute in this case arose out of the attorney-client relationship between appellee Hoover, Bax & Slovacek, L.L.P. and its former client, appellant George Deutsch. The client challenges the trial court's judgment awarding attorney's fees to the law firm based on unpaid legal bills and ordering that he take nothing on his counterclaims against the law firm and the individual attorney who handled his file. The court concluded the trial court erred in granting a directed verdict against the client as to his claim for fee forfeiture based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the law firm's conflicts of interest. Accordingly, the case is reversed and remanded to the trial court for a jury trial on the disputed fact issues regarding this claim and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attorney-Client PrivilegeBreach of Fiduciary DutyConflicts of InterestFee ForfeitureLegal MalpracticeDirected VerdictAppellate ProcedureJury InstructionsAttorney FeesEquitable Remedies
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Attorney General of State of Tex.

This appeal involves Mike M. Perez challenging a trial court's allocation of a workers' compensation settlement to his child support obligations, and Tony Diaz, Perez's former attorney, appealing the trial court's failure to allocate enough proceeds to his contractual claims. The court found that the Assistant Attorney General, who asserted the child support claim, did not properly intervene in the original hearing by failing to file a petition. Consequently, the appellate court sustained Perez's first point of error and modified the judgment to remove the child support bond. The court also affirmed the trial court's implied finding that both Perez and Diaz assented to the abandonment of their attorney-client contract, thus making an award based on the reasonable value of services proper. Diaz's claim for additional attorney's fees for breach of contract was also denied due to a lack of proof of presentment.

Child Support ArrearageWorkers' Compensation SettlementAttorney's Fees DisputeIntervention ProcedurePleading RequirementsDue Process ViolationWaiver of ErrorQuantum MeruitContract AbandonmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 03-06-00257-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2009

Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Attorney General of Texas v. GameTech International, Inc. Anthony J. Sadberry, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Lottery Commission And Texas Lottery Commission

Greg Abbott, as Attorney General of Texas, appealed a summary judgment that deemed settlement letters between GameTech International, Inc., and the Texas Lottery Commission exempt from disclosure under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA). The Attorney General contended that no other law rendered these communications confidential. The appellate court examined whether the confidentiality provisions of the Governmental Dispute Resolution Act and the civil practice and remedies code applied to informal settlement negotiations. It concluded that these statutes only cover communications made within statutorily defined alternative dispute resolution procedures, which the exchanged settlement offers were not. Furthermore, the court found no common-law privilege protecting settlement negotiations or a corporate right to privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's judgment, ruling that the settlement letters are not exempt from PIA disclosure requirements.

Public Information ActOpen Records RequestSettlement NegotiationsConfidentiality ExceptionStatutory ConstructionGovernmental Dispute ResolutionAlternative Dispute ResolutionCorporate Right to PrivacySummary Judgment AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
26
Case No. 03-23-00316-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2025

City of Killeen, Texas and Ground Game Texas v. Bell County, Texas; The 27th Judicial District Attorney's Office; And the Bell County Attorney's Office

The City of Killeen, Texas, and Ground Game Texas appealed the trial court's denial of their pleas to the jurisdiction. The underlying lawsuit, filed by Bell County, the 27th Judicial District Attorney’s Office, and the Bell County Attorney’s Office, challenged the constitutionality and validity of a Killeen ordinance decriminalizing misdemeanor marijuana possession. Appellants argued that the appellees lacked standing and that governmental immunity barred the suit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's order, concluding that the District Attorney’s Office had standing due to the ordinance's interference with its prosecutorial discretion and duties. It also found that governmental immunity was waived for challenges to an ordinance's validity and for concurrent claims for injunctive relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act.

Decriminalization OrdinanceMarijuana PossessionPlea to the JurisdictionGovernmental ImmunityStandingProsecutorial DiscretionUniform Declaratory Judgments ActTexas Local Government CodeTexas Health & Safety CodeTexas Code of Criminal Procedure
References
29
Case No. 03-02-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, against Seton Health Plan, Inc. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of civil penalties for Seton's failure to file annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. Seton sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the maximum penalty for such a violation was $10,000 per report, while the State initially pursued a penalty based on each day of violation. The district court sided with Seton on the maximum penalty, assessed minimum penalties of $1,000 for each of the two unfiled reports, denied the State's request for injunctive relief, and ordered the State to pay Seton's attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment, the denial of injunctive relief, and the penalty assessment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees, ruling that the State was statutorily entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under Government Code section 402.006(c) due to its recovery of a civil penalty.

Texas LawHealth Care RegulationHEDIS Report ViolationCivil PenaltiesDeclaratory Judgment ActionSovereign Immunity WaiverInjunctive Relief DeniedAttorney's Fees AwardStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Law
References
44
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03294 [184 AD3d 223]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2020

Matter of Mauser

Marc R. Mauser, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The Attorney Grievance Committee initiated disciplinary action against him for neglecting a client's personal injury case, failing to communicate for approximately 18 months, and making misrepresentations to the client, mediator, and the Committee regarding the case status and reasons for delays. Mauser also failed to diligently finalize a settlement and disburse funds promptly. The parties reached a joint agreement for discipline by consent, stipulating to violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect of a legal matter, failure to promptly comply with client requests for information, failure to act with reasonable diligence, inadequate supervision of staff, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Despite aggravating factors, mitigating factors such as no prior discipline and acceptance of responsibility led to the agreed-upon sanction of public censure, which the Court granted.

Attorney disciplineprofessional misconductneglect of dutyfailure to communicatemisrepresentationpublic censureRules of Professional Conductsettlement delayclient communicationsupervisory failures
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ken Paxton, Attorney General of the State of Texas v. Texas Department of State Health Services

The Attorney General appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of the Texas Department of State Health Services regarding a Public Information Act (PIA) dispute. The Department sought to withhold information from an Office of Inspector General (OIG) investigation into employee misconduct, asserting confidentiality under Government Code section 531.1021(g). The Attorney General contended that this statutory confidentiality exception only applies to OIG audits or investigations related to Medicaid or other health and human services fraud, abuse, or overcharges. The appellate court, reversing the lower court's decision, agreed with the Attorney General's narrower interpretation. Consequently, the court held that the OIG's confidentiality under section 531.1021(g) is limited to audits and investigations concerning fraud, waste, and abuse within the provision and delivery of health and human services.

Public Information ActGovernment CodeConfidentiality ExceptionOffice of Inspector General (OIG)Employee MisconductStatutory ConstructionMedicaid FraudHealth and Human ServicesDeclaratory Action AppealSummary Judgment
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 9,236 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