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

Owens Corning v. Carter

This case involves consolidated direct appeals to the Texas Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of several sections of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code: 71.031(a)(3) (borrowing statute), 71.051 (forum non conveniens), and 71.052(b) and (c) (asbestos claim dismissal provisions). Alabama plaintiffs challenged these sections on various constitutional grounds, including retroactivity, open courts, privileges and immunities, equal protection, and special laws. The trial court's judgment was affirmed regarding the constitutionality of section 71.051, which does not violate the Privileges and Immunities Clause. However, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's findings on sections 71.031(a)(3), 71.052(b), and 71.052(c), holding that they do not violate any asserted constitutional provisions and instructed the trial court to vacate related injunctions.

Constitutional LawTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAsbestos LitigationForum Non ConveniensBorrowing StatuteRetroactivityPrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSpecial LawsStatutory Interpretation
References
55
Case No. 09-08-00367-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Philip J. Pohl v. Polunsky Unit

Philip J. Pohl appealed the dismissal of his lawsuit under Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court addressed his contentions regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies, similarity of claims to previous lawsuits, the trial court's failure to grant leave to file, and the frivolity and legal basis of his claims. The court found that Pohl failed to comply with Section 14.005 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code regarding exhaustion of remedies and that his motion to waive court costs under Section 14.011 was not sufficiently supported by an imminent danger of serious physical injury. The Court also found that Pohl did not provide adequate legal authority or analysis to support his claims, thus overruling his issues regarding frivolity and arguable basis in law. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Inmate litigationExhaustion of administrative remediesFrivolous claimsInjunctive reliefPrison Litigation Reform ActPLRATexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeChapter 14Chapter 41Res judicata
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. Greer

This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a libel suit filed by Salem Abraham against Daniel Greer and Fix the Facts Foundation d/b/a AgendaWise. The dismissal occurred under Chapter 27 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Texas Supreme Court remanded the case for the Court of Appeals to consider remaining issues, including journalist privilege, the status of Greer and AgendaWise as journalists, and the constitutionality of Chapters 22 and 27 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. The Court of Appeals overruled all issues, affirming the trial court's dismissal. It found that Abraham failed to preserve his complaints regarding the trial court's failure to rule on privilege objections and the journalist status, and concluded that the interplay between Chapters 22 and 27 did not unconstitutionally abridge Abraham's common law remedy for defamation under the open courts provision, as discovery was permissible, albeit limited.

LibelDefamationJournalist PrivilegeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 27Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 22Anti-SLAPP StatuteOpen Courts ProvisionDue ProcessAppellate ReviewMotion to Dismiss
References
13
Case No. 05-18-00556-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2019

Skeet Phillips v. Ray Clark

Justice Whitehill concurs with the majority's decision to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction but disagrees with their reasoning. The core argument is that the appellant, Skeet Phillips, did not base his summary judgment motion in the defamation case on the First Amendment, its Texas equivalent, or Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 73. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction, and there is no need to analyze what constitutes 'electronic media' or the 'member of the electronic or print media' clause of Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(6). The concurring opinion advocates for a straightforward application of statutory interpretation, arguing against unnecessarily expanding the scope of judicial inquiry when a clear jurisdictional deficiency exists.

defamationjurisdictionsummary judgmentstatutory interpretationelectronic mediaFirst AmendmentTexas ConstitutionCivil Practice and Remedies Codeinterlocutory appealplain meaning
References
17
Case No. 12-23-00263-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2023

In Re: East Texas Medical Center Athens v. the State of Texas

East Texas Medical Center Athens (ETMC Athens) filed an original proceeding to challenge an order from Respondent Judge Jason Ellis, which struck ETMC Athens' designation of Gary Woolverton and ETMC EMS as responsible third parties. Sharon Dunn, the Real Party in Interest, was injured while working at a facility under ETMC Athens and initially sued Woolverton and ETMC EMS; those claims were dismissed. Dunn then amended her petition to include ETMC Athens, a nonsubscriber to workers' compensation. ETMC Athens sought to designate Woolverton and ETMC EMS as responsible third parties, but Dunn successfully moved to strike this, arguing Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code does not apply to workers' compensation actions. The appellate court denied the writ of mandamus, affirming that a negligence case against a nonsubscribing employer is considered an action for workers' compensation benefits under Texas law, thus precluding the designation of responsible third parties under Section 33.004 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code.

MandamusResponsible Third PartyWorkers' CompensationNonsubscriber EmployerTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 33Texas Labor CodeAbuse of DiscretionAppellate LawStatutory InterpretationCommon Law Negligence
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
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. 03-15-00252-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Dr. Behzad Nazari, D.D.S. D/B/A Antoine Dental Center Dr. Behzad Nazari Harlingen Family Dentistry, P.C. A/K/A Practical Business Solutions, Series LLC Juan D. Villarreal D.D.S., Series PLLC D/B/A Harlingen Family Dentistry Group v. State

This appeal stems from a civil Medicaid fraud lawsuit initiated by the State of Texas against Xerox Corporation, alleging the company failed to adequately review orthodontic service prior authorization requests, leading to $1.1 billion in unlawful payments to providers. Xerox contends that the State's Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA) claim is a statutory tort, therefore obligating the application of Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code for proportionate responsibility. The trial court, however, ruled that Chapter 33 does not apply to the TMFPA claim, consequently striking Xerox's third-party claims and denying its motion to designate responsible third parties. Xerox asserts that this exclusion of other potentially responsible parties skews the proceedings, compromises its defense, and creates an inefficient, piecemeal litigation process, constituting a clear abuse of discretion.

Medicaid fraudPrior authorizationStatutory tortProportionate responsibilityChapter 33Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention ActXeroxHealthcare claimsGovernment contractsJudicial discretion
References
56
Case No. 03-15-00401-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2015

in Re Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC F/K/A ACS State Healthcare, LLC

Relators Xerox Corporation and Xerox State Healthcare, LLC seek a writ of mandamus to overturn trial court orders that struck their third-party claims and denied leave to designate responsible third parties. The underlying suit is a Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act (TMFPA) enforcement action by the State of Texas against Xerox for misrepresenting its prior authorization review process for orthodontia services, leading to unauthorized Medicaid payments. The State argues the TMFPA is a remedial public welfare statute, not tort-based, and therefore Chapter 33 of the Civil Practice & Remedies Code (CPRC) on proportionate responsibility does not apply. The State asserts it seeks civil remedies and penalties from Xerox for its independent unlawful acts, not apportionable damages, and that Xerox has an adequate remedy on appeal.

Medicaid FraudTexas LawMandamusCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationState EnforcementPrior AuthorizationHealthcare LitigationTort LawProportionate Responsibility
References
98
Case No. 21 NY3d 861
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Islip v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Town of Islip challenged a determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) that the Town committed an improper practice by unilaterally discontinuing the permanent assignment of town-owned vehicles to certain employees for commuting. PERB had found this practice to be an economic benefit and a mandatory subject of bargaining. The Town argued that the practice was illegal under its local code of ethics and therefore not subject to negotiation. The Court affirmed PERB's finding that the Town engaged in an improper practice, concluding that the past practice of providing 'take-home' vehicles was not illegal under the Town's code. However, the Court modified PERB's remedial order, finding it unreasonable to compel the Town to repurchase vehicles it had sold, and remitted the case for PERB to fashion a more practical remedy.

Public Employment Relations BoardImproper PracticeUnilateral ChangePast PracticeMandatory Subject of BargainingTake-Home VehiclesCommuting BenefitEconomic BenefitCivil Service LawTaylor Law
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 10,496 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