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. 03-03-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Cities of Corpus Christi, Appellants//AEP Texas Central Company Public Utility Commission of Texas And Constellation New Energy, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and AEP Texas Central Company, Appellees//Public Utility Commission of Texas Cities of Corpus Christi Office of Public Utility Counsel And Constellation NewEnergy, Inc.

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal regarding the Public Utility Commission's authority to order AEP Texas Central Company to refund excess earnings from accelerated recovery of stranded costs. The dissenting Justice agrees with the majority on affirming the Commission's decisions concerning member account balances and demand charges. However, the dissent strongly contends that the Commission possessed the authority to mandate these refunds prior to 2004, arguing the statutory scheme was ambiguous and the Commission's action was a reasonable interpretation consistent with its duties to promote fair competition and prevent overrecovery. The dissent highlights that the majority's interpretation may lead to absurd results by limiting the Commission's ability to correct overrecovery while allowing it to address underrecovery.

Electricity DeregulationStranded CostsUtility RegulationPublic Utility CommissionRegulatory AuthorityExcess EarningsRefundsCompetitive MarketTexas Utility CodeAdministrative Law
References
12
Case No. 03-03-00435-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2004

Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission/East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery And Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. v. East Side Surgical Center Clinic for Special Surgery/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Richard Reynolds, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission

This case involves the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission's failure to establish fee guidelines for ambulatory surgical centers under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. East Side Surgical Center, Clinic for Special Surgery, and intervenor Surgical and Diagnostic Center, L.P. (collectively "East Side") sued the Commission to invalidate certain default rules that applied when specific guidelines were absent. The district court declared one rule (133.304(i)) invalid and enjoined its enforcement, citing unlawful delegation of authority. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's judgment regarding the rule's invalidity and dissolved the injunction, citing a Texas Supreme Court decision finding no unlawful delegation. The court affirmed that East Side was not entitled to its usual and customary fee in the absence of specific guidelines.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawDelegation of AuthorityRulemakingAmbulatory Surgical CentersJudicial ReviewInsurance CarrierFee GuidelinesFair and Reasonable RatesStatutory Interpretation
References
38
Case No. 15-25-00013-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2025

State of Texas, the Texas Facilities Commission, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, Mike Novak, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the TFC, and Rolland Niles, in His Official Capacity as Deputy Executive Commissioner for the System Support Services Division of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission v. Broadmoor Austin Associates, a Texas Joint Venture

Broadmoor Austin Associates leased office space to the Texas government, specifically the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC), through the Texas Facilities Commission (TFC). Rent has been unpaid for nearly two years due to alleged misconduct by state officials. Broadmoor asserts that sovereign immunity does not bar its claims for breach of contract, citing Chapter 114's express waiver for contracts involving construction and related services. Additionally, Broadmoor brings ultra vires claims against TFC Executive Director Mike Novak and HHSC Deputy Executive Commissioner Roland Niles, alleging their actions were beyond legal authority or a failure to perform ministerial duties. Broadmoor seeks prospective injunctive and declaratory relief to ensure these officials comply with state law, specifically regarding the availability of appropriated funds for the lease.

Sovereign ImmunityBreach of ContractUltra Vires DoctrineState AgenciesGovernment ContractsLease AgreementsLegislative AppropriationsExecutive AuthorityJudicial ReviewTexas Facilities Commission
References
69
Case No. 03-14-00340-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2015

CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC, and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company D/B/A AT&T// Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas// Cross-Appellee, CPS Energy, Time Warner Cable Texas LLC and Southwestern Bell Telephone Company D/B/A AT&T

This brief argues that the Public Utility Commission (Commission) erroneously issued an advisory opinion concerning amendments to federal regulations (47 C.F.R. 1.1409(e)) that took effect after the relevant billing period of 2005-2010. CPS Energy contends that these findings were premature, advisory, and beyond the Commission's jurisdictional scope. Additionally, CPS Energy asserts that the Commission's interpretation of Utilities Code § 54.204(c) constitutes an unconstitutional delegation of power to a federal agency. The brief urges the Third Court of Appeals to reverse the Commission's contested findings (Findings of Fact 84-87 and Conclusions of Law 26 and 27) and remand the case for an order consistent with the court's opinion.

JurisdictionAdvisory OpinionPole Attachment RatesFederal Communications CommissionPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationUnconstitutional DelegationRipenessAppellate Procedure
References
84
Case No. 03-15-00814-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2016

A. I. Divestitures, Inc.// the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality v. the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality And Richard Hyde, in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality// A. I. Divestitures, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a district court's order concerning a plea to the jurisdiction. Appellant A. I. Divestitures, Inc. (A.I.) challenged a 2013 compliance history rating assigned by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) and its Executive Director, Richard Hyde, which classified A.I. as an 'unsatisfactory performer'. A.I. argued that an agreed final judgment (AFJ) used by the Commission should not have been considered due to its specific terms and that the Commission's actions were arbitrary and capricious. A.I. also sought declaratory relief under various acts and alleged a breach of contract. The Court of Appeals determined that A.I.'s suit for judicial review was moot because the 2013 rating had been superseded. The court further held that A.I.'s claims for declaratory relief lacked a justiciable controversy and its breach of contract claim was barred by sovereign immunity, leading to the dismissal of the entire case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Compliance HistoryEnvironmental RegulationJudicial ReviewPlea to JurisdictionMootness DoctrineSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentBreach of ContractTexas Water CodeTexas Health and Safety Code
References
36
Case No. 03-03-00176-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2003

Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund/Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Leonard D. Watts v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission and Leonard D. Watts/Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund

This case involves a cross-appeal stemming from a workers' compensation claim by Leonard D. Watts, who sought lifetime income benefits for injuries sustained as a truck driver. The Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (appeals panel) initially reversed a hearing officer's decision and awarded Watts benefits, but this decision was later set aside by a Travis County district court. In this appeal, the Texas Workers' Compensation Insurance Fund (Texas Mutual) and the Commission challenged the district court's ruling. The Court of Appeals addressed arguments regarding the appeals panel's statutory authority for factual-sufficiency review and the interpretation of "issue" under the labor code, including legal doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court ultimately reversed the judgment of the district court, thereby affirming the decision of the Commission's appeals panel which granted Watts lifetime income benefits.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsAppeals Panel ReviewFactual SufficiencyStatutory AuthorityCross-AppealRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelCausationMaximum Medical Improvement
References
17
Case No. 13-06-00569-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2008

Canyon Regional Water Authority v. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, and Margaret Hoffman in Her Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

This case involves an appeal by Canyon Regional Water Authority (Canyon Regional) regarding water rates charged by Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (Guadalupe-Blanco) and the administrative rules of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (the Commission). Canyon Regional challenged Guadalupe-Blanco's rate increases, arguing they were not

Water Rate AppealContractual InterpretationAdministrative LawDeclaratory ReliefAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentPublic Interest HearingTexas Commission on Environmental QualityGuadalupe-Blanco River AuthorityCanyon Regional Water Authority
References
14
Case No. 03-00-00370-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Texas General Indemnity Company v. Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Todd Brown in His Official Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission And Michael L. MacIk

Texas General Indemnity Company (TGI) filed a declaratory judgment action in Travis County challenging the validity of Rule 130.8 of the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission (TWCC). The district court granted TWCC's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed TGI's suit, also conditionally denying TGI's summary judgment motion and granting TWCC's. TGI appealed, arguing mandatory jurisdiction in Travis County and that Rule 130.8 conflicted with the Labor Code. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, applying res judicata due to a prior adverse ruling against TGI on the same issue in Texas Gen. Indem. Co. v. Eisler. Additionally, the court affirmed the conditional judgment, concluding Rule 130.8 is a valid exercise of the Commission's rulemaking authority and does not conflict with the Texas Labor Code.

Administrative Rule ChallengeDeclaratory JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsImpairment Income BenefitsRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelStatutory InterpretationRulemaking AuthorityTexas Administrative Procedure ActLabor Code
References
31
Case No. 03-14-00735-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Entergy Texas, Inc.// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Public Utility Commission of Texas v. Public Utility Commission of Texas and Texas Industrial Energy Consumers// Office of Public Utility Counsel and Entergy Texas, Inc.

The Commission’s Order should be affirmed. The Commission reasonably interpreted its prior rate-case order, the Black-box Order, to authorize Entergy to book and amortize a regulatory asset for unrecovered Hurricane Rita reconstruction costs. The Black-box Order was ambiguous concerning the Rita Asset. That order was based on a “black box” settlement—one where only the amount of rates to be collected was set forth, not all of the individual components of a rate case. Because the Black-box Order did not explicitly state whether booking and amortizing the regulatory asset had been authorized, it was ambiguous. Courts defer to an agency’s interpretation of its prior, ambiguous order, and the evidence in the record supports the Commission’s decision. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that $13 million should be added to Entergy’s storm reserve based on the expenses Entergy incurred to repair equipment after a severe ice storm in 1997. A prior Commission decision that faulted Entergy for poor service quality did not amount to a finding that Entergy could not include the repair costs in the insurance reserve amount. Substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy failed to meet its burden to prove that predicted purchased-power capacity costs were known-and-measurable changes to the test-year data. The record supports the Commission’s decision that Entergy did not meet its burden of proving that requested changes were known and measurable. For example, Entergy based its arguments about purchasing capacity on the assumption that it would always purchase the maximum amount under new contracts. Entergy claimed that it would have more customers in the future. Not only is that speculative, but the utility failed to account for how additional customers would otherwise affect its recovery through rates. And Entergy’s arguments about transmission charges are controlled by numerous unknown variables used in a complex formula. The Commission’s test-year rule is created to avoid just such unknowns. Moreover, most of Entergy’s request for post-test-year changes to transmission costs were based on an agreement that was still waiting for approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is patently not a “known” change. Because substantial evidence supports the Commission’s decisions, the Order should be affirmed.

Utility RegulationRate CasePublic Utility CommissionAppellate BriefHurricane Rita CostsRegulatory AssetStorm Damage ReservePurchased Power CapacityTransmission EqualizationAdministrative Law
References
24
Case No. 03-19-00469-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Andrew Sansom Heinz Stefan Roesch Bee Spring, Ltd. Hays County And City of Kyle v. Texas Railroad Commission

A group of landowners and governmental entities (appellants) sought to enjoin the construction and operation of a natural gas pipeline owned by Permian Highway Pipeline, LLC, and Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline, LLC. They appealed a district court's decision that sustained a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Railroad Commission and granted summary judgment to the Pipeline Entities. The appellants challenged the Commission's Rule 70 under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to establish pipeline routing standards and sought declaratory relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, finding the APA claim improperly targeted the absence of a rule rather than its validity, and the UDJA claim lacked a viable legal theory. The court also rejected the appellants' constitutional arguments regarding due course of law, special privileges, and legislative delegation concerning the pipeline entities' eminent domain powers.

Eminent DomainNatural Gas PipelineTexas Railroad CommissionAdministrative Procedure ActDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional ChallengeSovereign ImmunityLegislative DelegationDue Course of LawSeparation of Powers
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 1,173 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