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. 03-18-00740-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2020

Gerard Matzen// Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office v. Marsha McLane, in Her Official Capacity as Director of Texas Civil Commitment Office, and the Texas Civil Commitment Office// Cross-Appellee, Gerard Matzen

Gerard Matzen appealed a district court's partial grant of Appellees' plea to the jurisdiction in his civil commitment case under the sexually violent predator (SVP) statute, challenging rulings on his APA, ultra vires, and immunity claims. The Texas Civil Commitment Office (TCCO) and its Director Marsha McLane cross-appealed the denial of their plea regarding Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order, finding Matzen's APA and ultra vires claims invalid and qualified immunity inapplicable. However, the court upheld the district court's denial of the plea concerning Matzen's procedural due process and takings claims, concluding they presented viable constitutional questions requiring further factual development.

Civil commitmentSexually Violent Predator ActPlea to the jurisdictionSovereign immunityUltra vires claimsAdministrative Procedure ActDue processTakings clauseCost recovery feesGovernment agency authority
References
65
Case No. No. 11-12-00339-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2014

Alfred Elwess v. Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas and Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company

Alfred Elwess, injured in an auto accident, sought to recover under his underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage from Farm Bureau County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas and Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company (Appellees). The Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing Elwess failed to obtain permission to settle with the tortfeasor and that his damages were covered by workers' compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Appellees. The Eleventh Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence that Elwess's failure to obtain permission materially prejudiced the Appellees' subrogation rights and that his damages were payable under workers' compensation, especially since his employer did not have such coverage. The court remanded the case for further proceedings.

Summary JudgmentUnderinsured Motorist (UIM)Insurance Coverage DisputeSettlement Without Consent ExclusionSubrogation RightsWorkers' Compensation ExclusionMaterial BreachActual PrejudiceAppellate ReviewDe Novo Review
References
7
Case No. 01-14-00687-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston, Inc., the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston Education Foundation, Dan Parsons, Chris Church, Church Enterprises, Inc., Gary Milleson, Ronald N. McMillan, D' Artagnan Bebel, Mark Goldie, Cha v. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC

This document contains two responses from John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC. The primary document, filed March 13, 2015, is a response to the Appellants' (Better Business Bureau et al.) objections to consolidation of related cases for submission. John Moore Services, Inc. and John Moore Renovation, LLC (Appellees) advocate for consolidation, asserting it would serve justice and efficiency by resolving all issues in a single judgment and prevent further confusion arising from separate appeals. The embedded document, filed June 12, 2014, is a response and objection to the Better Business Bureau's motion for attorneys' fees, court costs, expenses, and sanctions. John Moore argues that the requested fees are not reasonable or necessary, that the issue of reasonableness requires a jury trial, and that the supporting evidence (Elkin Affidavit and invoices) is legally insufficient and conclusory. Furthermore, John Moore contends that awarding fees at this stage would be neither just nor equitable, given the ongoing viable claims, and requests the court to deny the motion for fees, sustain their objections, grant their motion to consolidate, and compel discovery responses.

LitigationAttorney FeesCase ConsolidationAnti-SLAPP StatuteTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate PracticeJury TrialEvidence ObjectionsDiscovery DisputesLegal Fees Reasonableness
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1988

Perez v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

The case involves a class action lawsuit filed by 310 Hispanic Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), led by named plaintiff Bernardo Perez, alleging national origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court found a pattern and practice of discrimination within the FBI concerning conditions of employment and promotional opportunities for Hispanic agents. Specifically, the court highlighted the disproportionate burden placed on Hispanic agents for Spanish language-related assignments (like wiretaps and undercover work), which adversely affected their career advancement. The promotional system, with its excessive subjective elements and lack of EEO compliance mechanisms, was deemed discriminatory. The court also found that the FBI retaliated against Bernardo Perez for filing an EEO complaint, including the misuse of a Grand Jury subpoena during an administrative investigation against him. However, claims of religious discrimination and class-wide administrative discipline and transfer discrimination were not substantiated.

National Origin DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationCivil Rights ActDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactRetaliationFBIClass ActionPromotional SystemSubjective Evaluations
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolff v. Deputy Constables Ass'n of Bexar County

Appellee Deputy Constables Association of Bexar County sued appellants Nelson Wolff, et al. for violating the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act by failing to engage in collective bargaining. This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of Wolff's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. Wolff contended the trial court erred because the Deputy Constables lack standing under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174. The court analyzed the definition of 'police officer' under the Act, which requires employment in the 'police department' of a political subdivision. While deputy sheriffs are considered part of the 'police department' for a county, the court found Deputy Constables are employed by the Constable's Office, not the 'police department' or Sheriff's Office. Therefore, the court concluded that the Deputy Constables do not meet the definition of 'police officer' under the Act, lack standing to bring suit, and reversed the trial court’s denial of Wolff’s plea to the jurisdiction, rendering judgment in favor of Wolff.

Collective BargainingFire and Police Employee Relations ActTexas Local Government Code Chapter 174StandingPlea to JurisdictionMotion to DismissDeputy ConstablesPolice Officers DefinitionAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Monroe County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n & Monroe County/Monroe County Sheriff

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had denied a petition to confirm an arbitration award and granted a cross-petition to vacate it. The arbitration award mandated that Monroe County provide firearms and training to its deputies in the Civil Bureau of the Monroe County Sheriff's office. The Supreme Court had ruled that the award contravened public policy by infringing upon the Sheriff's discretionary authority under Judiciary Law § 400. However, the appellate court disagreed, concluding that the public policy exception did not meet the stringent criteria for overturning an arbitration award. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, thereby confirming the original arbitration award and denying the cross-petition.

Arbitration AwardPublic Policy ExceptionCollective Bargaining AgreementMonroe County SheriffCivil Bureau DeputiesFirearms TrainingHealth and SafetyAppellate Court DecisionVacating Arbitration AwardConfirming Arbitration Award
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1988

Levitt v. Civil Service Commission

The City of New York appealed a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the Civil Service Commission's decision to reject the reclassification of the deckhand position from the competitive to the noncompetitive civil service class. Petitioners argued that the Commission applied an overly strict standard, acted inconsistently with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the NY Constitution, based its decision solely on a presumption despite expert opinions, and failed to adequately state its reasoning. The Appellate Division found that the Commission properly used the term "compelling" to reflect the constitutional preference for competitive examinations and that its decision, while brief, allowed for judicial review. Citing the public safety roles of deckhands, similar to police and firefighters, the court concluded that competitive examinations are feasible and petitioners failed to demonstrate an impediment to compliance with job-relatedness requirements.

Civil Service LawJob ReclassificationCompetitive ExaminationNoncompetitive ClassPublic SafetyDeckhand PositionAppellate ReviewCivil Rights Act Title VIINew York ConstitutionArbitrary Determination
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01453
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2022

Matter of County of Nassau v. Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Civ. Serv. Empls. Assn., AFSCME, Local 1000, AFL-CIO

The County of Nassau appealed an order denying its petition to permanently stay arbitration and granting the respondents' motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose when the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA), on behalf of Joseph W. Grzymalski, a seasonal worker, filed a grievance claiming he was entitled to full-time benefits due to working 40 hours per week. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the reclassification of a civil service position, like Grzymalski's, can only be accomplished by the municipal civil service commission as per Civil Service Law § 22, thus rendering the grievance nonarbitrable. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted the County of Nassau's petition to permanently stay arbitration and denied the respondents' motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationPublic Sector EmploymentCivil Service LawGrievanceReclassificationSeasonal WorkerFull-Time BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Companies v. Sears

In this case, James Sears, an at-will independent insurance agent, sued Texas Farm Bureau Insurance Companies for negligent investigation and intentional infliction of emotional distress after his termination following an investigation into alleged kickback schemes. The trial court found Farm Bureau liable, and the court of appeals affirmed the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim but remanded the negligent investigation claim. The Texas Supreme Court reversed both holdings. It declined to recognize a negligent-investigation cause of action for at-will agents, asserting it would contradict the at-will employment doctrine. Furthermore, the Court determined that Farm Bureau’s conduct, including its investigation and post-termination actions, did not amount to the extreme and outrageous behavior required for intentional infliction of emotional distress in an employment context. Consequently, the Supreme Court rendered judgment that Sears take nothing.

At-will employmentNegligent investigationIntentional infliction of emotional distressInsurance fraudIndependent agentTermination of employmentEmployer liabilityTexas lawWorkplace investigationTort law
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 2,545 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