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. 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. 13-14-00293-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. 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. 04-14-00451-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. v. City of Public Service Board of San Antonio, a Municipal Board of the City of San Antonio

Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. appealed an order granting a plea to the jurisdiction on its attorney's fees claim in a breach of contract suit against the City of San Antonio acting through the City Public Service Board (CPS). The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, affirmed the trial court's decision. The court determined that Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, as applicable to the 2004 contract, did not waive governmental immunity for attorney's fees. Furthermore, the court rejected arguments that CPS waived immunity by seeking affirmative relief or engaging in a proprietary function. The appellate court concluded that the trial court properly granted the plea to the jurisdiction due to the absence of a clear and unambiguous waiver of immunity for attorney's fees.

Governmental ImmunityAttorney's FeesBreach of ContractPlea to JurisdictionTexas Local Government CodeChapter 271Waiver of ImmunityProprietary FunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. ADJ9919242
Regular
Apr 04, 2017

JAMES KIRCHER vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City and County of San Francisco's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the finding that a firefighter sustained an industrial injury to his heart and circulatory system when he experienced atrial arrhythmias during a mandatory work treadmill test. Although the Agreed Medical Examiner initially stated he wouldn't term the event an "injury," he later opined the arrhythmias were work-related and caused in part by job stress, leading to the applicant being taken off work. The Board concluded this constituted an injury under the Labor Code, resulting in temporary disability.

Atrial arrhythmiasTreadmill stress testAgreed Medical ExaminerWork mandated health checkIndustrial injuryTemporary disabilityPermanent disabilityOccupational medicineCardiologyLabor Code section 3208
References
0
Case No. 03-23-00531-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2025

The State of Texas v. the City of Houston, the City of San Antonio, and the City of El Paso

This case concerns an appeal by the State of Texas from a district court's judgment declaring the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act (TRCA) unconstitutional. The TRCA aimed to achieve statewide regulatory consistency by preempting local regulations and establishing a private cause of action for those injured by preempted local laws. The Cities of Houston, San Antonio, and El Paso initiated a pre-enforcement action, challenging the Act's constitutionality on various grounds, including violations of the Home Rule Amendment and due-course-of-law provisions. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the plaintiff Cities lacked standing to sue. Specifically, the appellate court found that the Cities failed to demonstrate an "injury in fact" arising from a concrete application of the Act or to establish that their alleged injuries were "fairly traceable" to the State of Texas.

TexasAppeals CourtRegulatory Consistency ActStandingSubject-Matter JurisdictionPreemptionHome RuleDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional LawInjury-in-fact
References
26
Case No. ADJ2569930
Regular
Jul 30, 2012

LOUIS DOBERT vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the City and County of San Francisco's petition for reconsideration. The Board affirmed the prior decision to grant removal and rescind a stay of proceedings, which had been sought pending the applicant's criminal fraud trial. The Board reasoned that continuing to provide workers' compensation benefits aligns with the applicant's presumption of innocence. Denying benefits before a conviction would unjustly prejudice the applicant, and restitution can be sought if convicted.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalStay of ProceedingsPresumption of InnocenceWorkers' Compensation FraudInsurance FraudGrand TheftAttempted PerjuryFindings and Award
References
10
Case No. SFO 0495624
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

TUALATAI AUIMATAGI vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to rescind sanctions imposed on the City and County of San Francisco. While affirming the original award of permanent disability and further medical treatment, the Board found the defendant's challenge to the agreed medical evaluator's methodology was based on a good-faith, albeit mistaken, belief and did not constitute frivolous conduct or unnecessary delay. Therefore, sanctions were deemed unwarranted under Labor Code section 5813.

Tualatai AuimatagiCity and County of San FranciscoFindings Award & OrderAgreed Medical EvaluatorAlfredo Fernandez M.D.American Medical Association GuidesAMA GuidesGait Derangement Methodwhole person impairmentpermanent disability
References
1
Case No. ADJ9597686
Regular
Jan 13, 2016

TOMIE KATO vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is reconsidering an order directing the City and County of San Francisco (defendant) to pay applicant's attorney $\$ 3,082.00$ for deposition fees. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing the fee was unreasonable and requesting sanctions against applicant's attorney. The WCAB deemed the defendant's petition to be a timely objection to the original order. The matter is returned to the Workers' Compensation Judge to consider the objection and determine the reasonableness of the attorney fees. The WCAB denied the request for sanctions against applicant's attorney.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Decision After ReconsiderationSection 5710 Attorney Deposition FeesWCJPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLabor Code Section 5813 SanctionsReasonableness of Attorney FeesDeposition TranscriptMotor Vehicle Accident
References
0
Case No. ADJ8603115
Regular
Aug 15, 2013

Laverne Maliga vs. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City and County of San Francisco's petition for reconsideration of an award to Laverne Maliga. The applicant, a firefighter, sustained an injury while attending a trench rescue training class offered through a federal grant program. The Board adopted the Workers' Compensation Judge's report, which found the injury arose out of and in the course of employment because the Fire Department encouraged participation in such training for skill development and public protection. The judge distinguished this case from similar ones by noting the employer's active encouragement and provision of opportunities for the training.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCity and County of San FranciscoPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactCourse of EmploymentTrench Rescue TrainingSan Francisco Fire DepartmentHomeland Security GrantOff-Duty StatusProfessional Development
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 10,863 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