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. No. 08-22-00029-CV (TC# 2021DCV1132)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2023

Ricardo A. Samaniego, in His Official Capacity as County Judge, Carlos Leon, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, David Stout, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Illiana Holguin, in Her Official Capacity as County Commissioner, Carl L. Robinson, in His Official Capacity as County Commissioner v. Associated General Contractors of Texas, Highway, Heavy, Utilities & Industrial Branch and a Brothers Milling, LLC

The El Paso County Commissioners Court, including County Judge Ricardo A. Samaniego and Commissioners, appealed the denial of their plea to the jurisdiction. They were sued by Associated General Contractors of Texas and A Brothers Milling, LLC, who alleged the Commissioners Court acted ultra vires in setting prevailing wage rates for heavy-highway construction projects in El Paso County. The Appellants argued governmental immunity shielded them and that their wage determinations were final. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial, concluding that the Appellees had sufficiently pleaded an ultra vires claim, which falls within the trial court's subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that ultra vires acts by public officials are not considered acts of the state and therefore are not subject to the finality clause.

Governmental ImmunityUltra Vires ActPrevailing Wage RatePublic WorksSubject Matter JurisdictionInterlocutory AppealPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Government CodeStatutory InterpretationEl Paso County
References
16
Case No. 03-13-00560-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2015

Risk Management Strategies, Inc. v. Texas Workforce Commission Commissioner Andres Alcantar Commissioner Ronald G. Congleton And Commissioner Hope Andrade

Risk Management Strategies, Inc. (RMS) appealed a trial court's dismissal of its suit against the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) and its commissioners regarding a determination that caregivers were employees of bank trusts, not RMS, for unemployment tax purposes. RMS sought judicial review of the TWC's decision and alleged ultra vires acts by the commissioners for misinterpreting the Texas Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the judicial review claim, ruling that the statutory waiver of immunity applied only to unemployment benefits disputes, not tax liability. However, the court reversed and remanded the ultra vires claims, finding that while the commissioners were not solely bound by a 'control test,' RMS should have an opportunity to amend pleadings to demonstrate a specific statutory violation or lack of legal authority. The case was affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, allowing RMS to re-plead the ultra vires claims.

Unemployment Tax LiabilitySovereign ImmunityJudicial ReviewUltra Vires ClaimTexas Labor CodeEmployer-Employee RelationshipCaregiversBank TrustsStatutory ConstructionAppellate Procedure
References
19
Case No. 03-21-00294-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Texas Telephone Association and Texas Statewide Telephone Cooperative, Inc., and Their Participating Members Windstream Services, LLC Texas Windstream, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Windstream Communications Kerrville, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications) Valor Telecommunications of Texas, LLC (d/B/A Windstream Communications Southwest) Windstream Sugar Land LLC v. Public Utility Commission of Texas Peter Lake, Chairman Will McAdams, Commissioner Lori Cobos, Commissioner And Jimmy Glotfelty, Commissioner, Each in His or Her Official Capacity at the Public Utility Commission of Texas

This case involves a dispute over the Texas Universal Service Fund (TUSF), established to ensure affordable telecommunications services statewide. Rural telecommunication service providers (Rural Providers) sued the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and its Commissioners when the PUC stopped paying full TUSF support amounts. The Rural Providers alleged ultra vires acts by the Commissioners for underfunding TUSF and creating a payment hierarchy, and violations of the APA for implementing these changes without proper rulemaking. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, finding the Commissioners acted ultra vires and violated APA rulemaking procedures. The decision affirmed in part, reversed and rendered in part, and remanded in part for damages on a regulatory takings claim.

Texas Universal Service FundTelecommunications RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRural TelecommunicationsRegulatory TakingsUltra Vires ActAdministrative Procedure ActRulemaking ViolationDeclaratory JudgmentMandamus Relief
References
76
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sweeney v. Barnhart

Robert Sweeney, the claimant, appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Sweeney alleged disability due to depression, but also had a significant history of alcohol and substance abuse, which led to job termination and arrests. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that while Sweeney had severe impairments, his drug and alcohol addiction was a material contributing factor to his disability. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, agreeing that without the effects of substance abuse, Sweeney retained the capacity to perform his past relevant work, thus upholding the denial of benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSubstance AbuseAlcohol DependenceDepressionAdministrative Law JudgeJudicial ReviewTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacityMental Impairment
References
24
Case No. 14-08-00193-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2010

Gregory R. Mattox and Barbara Wilkerson v. County Commissioners' Court-Grimes County, Betty Shiflett-Grimes County Judge, John Bertling-County Commissioner Pct 1., and Pam Finke-County Commissioner Pct 4

The case involves Gregory R. Mattox and Barbara Wilkerson (appellants) appealing a trial court's denial of their petition for a writ of mandamus. They sought to compel the Grimes County Commissioners Court and specific county officials (appellees) to cancel a roadway dedication on a portion of Hill Forest Lane that encroached on their property. The core dispute centers on whether the cancellation of the roadway dedication was a mandatory ministerial act under Texas Local Government Code section 232.008(e) or a discretionary act under section 232.008(h), which applies if the cancellation would prevent the interconnection of infrastructure to pending or existing development. The appellate court found that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the applicability of section 232.008(h), specifically concerning the existence of a "proposed interconnection" and "pending or existing development" on an adjacent property. Consequently, neither party was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of appellees and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Roadway DedicationWrit of MandamusLocal Government CodeSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationProperty RightsSubdivision CancellationMinisterial ActDiscretionary ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 89 N.Y.2d 395
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1996

CAYUGA-ONONDAGA BD v. Sweeney

In a case brought by the Commissioner of Labor, the Cayuga-Onondaga Counties Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) was found to have violated Labor Law § 220 by failing to pay prevailing wages to employees on a lighting improvement project for the Auburn City School District. BOCES appealed, arguing that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction due to the failure to file a timely notice of claim and adhere to the statute of limitations under Education Law § 3813. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that prevailing wage enforcement proceedings under Labor Law § 220 vindicate a public interest, making the notice of claim and statute of limitations requirements of Education Law § 3813 inapplicable. The Court also rejected BOCES' argument that the employees' civil service classification exempted them from prevailing wage requirements.

Prevailing wagePublic worksLabor LawEducation LawNotice of claimStatute of limitationsPublic interest doctrineCivil serviceMunicipal contractsSchool district liability
References
44
Case No. NO. 03-13-00332-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2015

Gordon G. McWatt, D.O. v. David Mattax, Texas Commissioner of Insurance Ryan Brannan, Commissioner of Workers' Compensation And Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation

Gordon G. McWatt, D.O., appealed an administrative penalty of $15,000 and an order to attend an educational course for violating reporting and record-keeping requirements as a 'designated doctor' with the Division of Workers’ Compensation. The audit focused on the timely submission and electronic transmission of DWC Form-69s. McWatt argued that the ALJ and Commissioner lacked authority, retroactively applied rules, misinterpreted Rule 130.1 by holding him responsible for his employer Concentra's failures, and arbitrarily assessed penalties. The court found that the Division had proper authority for the audit and that Rule 130.1 held McWatt ultimately responsible for compliance, irrespective of his employer's role in filing. Consequently, the trial court's judgment affirming the ALJ's monetary penalty and the Commissioner's non-monetary sanction was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewReporting RequirementsRecord KeepingAdministrative PenaltiesMedical EvaluationMaximum Medical ImprovementImpairment RatingDesignated Doctor
References
17
Case No. 11-20-00206-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 09, 2021

the Ector County Alliance of Businesses v. Greg Abbott, in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas John W. Hellerstedt, in His Official Capacity as the Commissioner of Public Health of the State of Texas and/or as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services And the State of Texas.

The Ector County Alliance of Businesses challenged Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Public Health Commissioner John Hellerstedt regarding executive orders and declarations imposing COVID-19 restrictions, specifically on bars. The Alliance, comprising Ector County bar operators, argued that sections of the Texas Disaster Act were unconstitutional and that the officials acted ultra vires. The trial court initially granted pleas to the jurisdiction. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals, finding several issues moot due to intervening events like superseded orders and legislative amendments, dismissed all claims against the Commissioner and the Alliance's second through fifth causes of action against the Governor and the State for lack of jurisdiction. The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the Alliance's first cause of action against the Governor and the State, concluding the Alliance lacked standing for prospective relief.

COVID-19Texas Disaster ActPublic Health DisasterExecutive OrdersConstitutional ChallengeSeparation of PowersMootnessStandingSovereign ImmunityInjunctive Relief
References
38
Case No. Docket No. 13
Regular Panel Decision

Rubet v. Commissioner of Social Security

Maria Rubet, claiming disability due to a nervous condition since October 1993, sought judicial review of a decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying her application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Following a remand and a subsequent hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) again found Rubet not disabled, a determination adopted by the Commissioner. Rubet failed to respond to the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings and a court order. The Court, after reviewing the record and adopting the Commissioner's analysis, found substantial evidence, including medical evaluations, to support the ALJ's finding that Rubet was not disabled. Consequently, the Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Social SecuritySSI BenefitsDisability ClaimAdministrative Law JudgeMedical EvaluationResidual Functional CapacityMental ImpairmentAppealsJudicial ReviewCommissioner Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rice v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff Tammy Rice sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision denying her application for disability benefits. The District Court considered the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Plaintiff had severe impairments of mild degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine and mild degenerative joint disease of the knees but did not meet or equal a listed impairment. The ALJ determined Plaintiff could perform light work with restrictions, concluding she was not disabled. The Court found the Commissioner's decision supported by substantial evidence and in accordance with applicable legal standards. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, and Plaintiff's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Social SecurityDisability BenefitsALJ DecisionSubstantial EvidenceMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 12(c)Lumbar Spine
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 1,732 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