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. 13-14-00293-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 2015

San Patricio County, Texas v. Nueces County, Texas and Nueces County Appraisal District

This is a reply brief filed by San Patricio County, Texas, in an appeal against Nueces County and Nueces County Appraisal District. The core issue revolves around unresolved boundary disputes between the two counties, leading to double taxation for industrial taxpayers like Occidental Petroleum Company. San Patricio County argues that the Nueces County District Court lacked jurisdiction and venue, and erred in granting summary judgment without determining the boundary line. They assert that the 2003 Judgment, which declared 'natural and artificial modifications to the shoreline of San Patricio County shall form a part of San Patricio County,' includes docks, piers, and similar facilities as part of their county, consistent with maritime law and riparian rights. The county seeks reversal of the trial court's decision, either for transfer back to a neutral Refugio County District Court, or for a judgment declaring the disputed properties within San Patricio County's jurisdiction, or for a remand to resolve factual issues concerning the boundary.

County Boundary DisputeJurisdictionVenueSummary JudgmentCollateral Attack2003 Judgment InterpretationShoreline ModificationsDocks and PiersRiparian RightsTaxation Dispute
References
23
Case No. 07-12-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2013

Wendell H. Taylor v. Lubbock Regional MHMR & JI Texas Risk Management and Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers' Compensation

Wendell H. Taylor appealed the trial court's dismissal of portions of his suit against Lubbock Regional MHMR, JI Specialty Services, Inc., Texas Council Risk Management Fund, and Texas Department of Insurance-Workers' Compensation Division. Taylor sustained a compensable injury while employed by MHMR and sought to extend his injury claim to include chronic pain and other conditions, which the appeals panel denied. He subsequently sued in district court, alleging intentional tortious acts, altering medical records, and bad faith treatment, alongside seeking judicial review and lifetime healthcare benefits. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Taylor's claims against MHMR, the Risk Management Fund, and the Workers' Compensation Division due to a lack of jurisdiction and governmental immunity for tort claims. However, it reversed the dismissal against JI Specialty Services, Inc., finding its claim of governmental immunity was not supported by the record and remanded for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGovernmental ImmunitySovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionAdministrative RemediesIntentional TortsAppeals Panel DecisionSelf-insured EntityThird-party AdministratorRisk Management Fund
References
26
Case No. 13-05-075-CV, 13-05-022-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2005

San Patricio County v. Nueces County

This case involves appeals between San Patricio County and Nueces County concerning a boundary dispute, a tax suit, and a bill of review. San Patricio County initially sought a declaratory judgment to establish the boundary and an accounting for ad valorem taxes. The trial court's 2003 boundary judgment was affirmed. However, Nueces County filed a bill of review to challenge the boundary judgment due to alleged lack of notice, which the appellate court reversed and rendered in favor of San Patricio County. Separately, the trial court dismissed San Patricio's tax suit against Nueces on governmental immunity grounds, which the appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that immunity did not apply to unauthorized tax collections.

Boundary DisputeTax LitigationBill of ReviewGovernmental ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeclaratory JudgmentCounty GovernmentJurisdictional IssueTexas Law
References
64
Case No. 10-14-00297-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2015

Rhonda L Forsthoff v. Brazos County, a Self-Insured County Through the Texas Association of Counties Risk Management Pool

This case involves an appeal by Rhonda L. Forsthoff (appellant) challenging the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of Brazos County (appellee). The dispute stems from Forsthoff's claim for workers' compensation benefits following an on-the-job accident on May 30, 2012, where she alleged a sacroiliac injury. A hearing officer initially found a compensable lumbar strain but denied benefits for the sacroiliac injury, determining maximum medical improvement (MMI) on August 23, 2012, with a 5% impairment rating. This decision was upheld by the Texas Workers Compensation Appeals Panel. Forsthoff then filed suit, but the trial court granted summary judgment to Brazos County, concluding that medical evidence did not support a causal link between the accident and the sacroiliac injury. The Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing inadequate briefing by the pro-se appellant and the lack of evidence to refute the medical findings.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAppealPro-seSacroiliac InjuryLumbar StrainMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingAppellate ProcedureTexas Law
References
5
Case No. 07-12-00232-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2013

Wendell H. Taylor v. Lubbock Regional MHMR & JI Texas Risk Management and Texas Department of Insurance Division of Workers' Compensation

Wendell H. Taylor, an employee of Lubbock Regional MHMR, sustained a compensable injury in 2009. His subsequent claim for chronic pain and related conditions was denied by the Workers' Compensation Division's appeals panel. Taylor filed suit in district court seeking judicial review and alleging intentional torts, bad faith, and other claims against MHMR, JI Specialty Services, Texas Council Risk Management Fund, and the Division. The trial court dismissed most of Taylor's claims against all defendants based on a lack of jurisdiction and governmental immunity. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissals for MHMR, the Risk Management Fund, and the Division, citing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and sovereign/governmental immunity for tort claims. However, the court reversed the dismissal against JI Specialty Services, Inc., concluding it had not established its claim to governmental immunity. The case was remanded for further proceedings regarding JI Specialty Services.

Interlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTort ClaimsAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionSelf-insured EntityThird-Party Administrator LiabilityWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTexas Appeals Court
References
28
Case No. 15-25-00093-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2025

State of Texas v. City of San Antonio, Ron Niremberg, in His Official Capacity as Mayor of the City of San Antonio, and Erik Walsh, in His Official Capacity as City Manager of the City of San Antonio

The State sued the City of San Antonio, its Mayor, and its City Manager for ultra vires conduct under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, seeking declarations that the City’s plan to spend taxpayer dollars on travel for out-of-state abortions violates the Texas Constitution’s Gift Clause. The district court granted the City’s plea to the jurisdiction, asserting the claim was not ripe, and dismissed the suit. The State argues that the City’s plan to fund out-of-state abortion travel violates the Gift Clause by lacking public benefit, failing to serve a public purpose, and not retaining public control over funds. The State contends that delaying judicial review would cause great hardship due to the imminent risk of constitutional injury from the disbursement of funds, which the City intended to expedite before SB 33's effective date or by the end of its fiscal year. The State asserts the case is ripe for review because the illegal activity is "likely to occur," and despite SB 33 prohibiting such funding, the City's belief it can disburse funds by September 30, 2025, keeps the controversy live.

Public Funds MisuseAbortion Travel FundingTexas Gift ClauseRipeness DoctrineUltra Vires ActConstitutional ChallengeState-City ConflictReproductive Rights PolicyTaxpayer MoneyInjunctive Relief
References
89
Case No. 13-08-00269-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 2009

Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division, Nueces County Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, Nueces County Community Supervision and Corrections, and Nueces County Adult Probation Department

Appellants Luzelma Campos, Betty Jo Gonzalez, and Misty Valero appealed the trial court's grant of a plea to the jurisdiction in favor of appellees, including the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Nueces County entities. Appellants alleged federal civil rights violations and torts under the Texas Tort Claims Act, stemming from sexual harassment and assault during their incarceration. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1983, determining that the appellees were state entities immune from such suits, and found claims for injunctive relief moot as appellants were no longer incarcerated. However, the court reversed the dismissal of claims under the Texas Tort Claims Act, remanding for further proceedings to allow discovery and amendment of pleadings regarding allegations of premise defect and the use of tangible personal property, consistent with prior rulings.

Plea to the JurisdictionSovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActFederal Civil RightsSection 1983Premise DefectTangible Personal PropertyNegligent Hiring and SupervisionSexual MisconductIncarceration Conditions
References
15
Case No. 03-00-00398-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2001

Burnet County Sheriff's Department and Burnet County, Texas v. Zarina Carlisle

Zarina Carlisle, a senior correctional officer, sued Burnet County Sheriff's Department and Burnet County for wrongful termination under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation for reporting unprofessional conduct by her supervisor, Captain Wendell Gilmore. Carlisle reported Gilmore's cursing and 'bad-mouthing' to Sheriff Joe Pollack, believing it violated county personnel policies and constituted disorderly conduct under the Texas Penal Code. Burnet County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Carlisle failed to allege a 'violation of law' sufficient to waive sovereign immunity. The appellate court agreed, finding that internal personnel policies do not constitute a 'law' under the Whistleblower Act unless promulgated pursuant to a statute or ordinance, which was not established. Furthermore, Carlisle's allegations did not meet the elements for disorderly conduct. The court concluded that Carlisle failed to plead a cause of action sufficient to invoke the Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, reversing the district court's denial of Burnet County's plea to the jurisdiction.

Wrongful TerminationWhistleblower ActSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionPublic EmployeeViolation of LawPersonnel PolicyDisorderly ConductTexas Court of AppealsAbuse of Authority
References
43
Case No. 04-13-00080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2013

Nelson Wolff, County Judge of Bexar County Texas, Bexar County Commissioners Paul Elizondo, Tommy Adkisson, Sergio Chico Rodriguez and Kevin Wolff And Bexar County, Texas v. Deputy Constables Association of Bexar

The Deputy Constables Association of Bexar County sued Nelson Wolff, et al., alleging a violation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act for failing to engage in collective bargaining. The case originated from the trial court's denial of Wolff's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The central legal question on appeal was whether the Deputy Constables possessed the standing to collectively bargain under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174, which restricts this right to "police officers" employed in a political subdivision's "police department." The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, analyzed relevant statutory definitions and precedent, distinguishing between the Sheriff's Office (considered a "police department" for the county) and the Constable's Office. Concluding that Deputy Constables are not employed by the "police department" or the Sheriff's Office, the court determined they do not meet the statutory definition of "police officer" and thus lack standing to pursue their claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and rendered judgment in favor of Wolff, dismissing the suit.

Collective BargainingStandingPolice OfficersLocal Government CodeBexar CountyConstable's OfficeSheriff's OfficeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPlea to Jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00598 [191 AD3d 1051]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Grimaldi v. Suffolk County Dept. of Health C/O Suffolk County Risk Mgt.

The claimant, William Grimaldi, sustained work-related injuries in 2007 and 2008. The Workers' Compensation Board initially established his average weekly wage for awards based on the lower 2008 wage. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board erred in applying the 2008 average weekly wage for the ongoing permanent partial disability awards related to the 2007 injury. The court held that the awards for the 2007 injury should be based on the higher wage earned at the time of that injury. Therefore, the Board's decision was modified and remitted for further proceedings, while the appeal from the denial of reconsideration was dismissed as academic.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WagePermanent Partial DisabilityApportionmentRemittalJudicial ReviewWage Earning CapacityAppellate ReviewInjury ClaimsBoard Decision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 15,069 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