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

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. v. State

Envoy Medical Systems, L.L.C. and Independent Review Incorporated, both Independent Review Organizations (IROs), appealed a trial court's judgment denying their request to exempt certain records from disclosure under the Public Information Act (PIA). They sought to prevent the release of information pertaining to their reviewers, reviewer contracts, and compensation terms, arguing that this information was either 'confidential by law' or fell under the commercial or financial information exception of the PIA. The Texas Department of Insurance, having received the initial information request, had interpreted its rules to protect patient-specific data provided *to* IROs, not data provided *by* IROs as part of their certification application. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate that any exception to public disclosure applied to the disputed information.

Public Information ActOpen Records ActConfidentiality ExemptionCommercial InformationFinancial InformationIndependent Review OrganizationsIRO CertificationMedical NecessityUtilization ReviewTrade Secrets
References
12
Case No. 01-17-00146-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2019

Michael Fallon, M.D. v. the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson as Officer for the Public Information for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Michael Fallon, M.D. sued the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Craig Henderson under the Texas Public Information Act (PIA) after they denied his request for certain information, claiming it was held by an affiliated private entity, the MD Anderson Physicians Network. The trial court dismissed Fallon's suit. The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Fallon's mandamus claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Cancer Center had a right of access to the Physicians Network's records, thereby making the information "public information" under the PIA. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of Fallon's declaratory judgment claim, stating that the Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive sovereign immunity for such claims. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Public Information ActSovereign ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentMandamusGovernmental BodyNon-profit OrganizationPhysicians NetworkMedical Peer ReviewSummary JudgmentPlea to Jurisdiction
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Health Care Information Council v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

Seton Health Plan, Inc., a licensed health maintenance organization (HMO), failed to file its annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports for 1999 and 2000 with the Texas Health Care Information Council, leading to a dispute over civil penalties. The State, through the Attorney General, initially demanded $153,000, interpreting 'each act of violation' as each day of non-compliance, while Seton contended the maximum penalty was $10,000 per unfiled report. Seton filed a declaratory judgment action to construe the statute, and the district court sided with Seton, assessing a minimum penalty of $1,000 for each report. The State appealed, raising issues of mootness, sovereign immunity, the penalty amount, denial of injunctive relief, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the district court's interpretation of the penalty, the assessed penalties, and the denial of injunctive relief, but remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees.

Declaratory JudgmentStatutory ConstructionCivil PenaltiesSovereign ImmunityInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesHEDIS ReportHealth Maintenance OrganizationTexas Health and Safety CodeAdministrative Procedure Act
References
43
Case No. 03-02-00114-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2002

Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General v. Seton Health Plan, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by the Texas Health Care Information Council and the State of Texas, Office of the Attorney General, against Seton Health Plan, Inc. The core dispute centered on the interpretation of civil penalties for Seton's failure to file annual Health Plan Employer Data Information Set (HEDIS) reports as required by the Texas Health and Safety Code. Seton sought a declaratory judgment asserting that the maximum penalty for such a violation was $10,000 per report, while the State initially pursued a penalty based on each day of violation. The district court sided with Seton on the maximum penalty, assessed minimum penalties of $1,000 for each of the two unfiled reports, denied the State's request for injunctive relief, and ordered the State to pay Seton's attorney's fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's declaratory judgment, the denial of injunctive relief, and the penalty assessment. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the issue of the State's attorney's fees, ruling that the State was statutorily entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under Government Code section 402.006(c) due to its recovery of a civil penalty.

Texas LawHealth Care RegulationHEDIS Report ViolationCivil PenaltiesDeclaratory Judgment ActionSovereign Immunity WaiverInjunctive Relief DeniedAttorney's Fees AwardStatutory ConstructionAdministrative Law
References
44
Case No. 14-07-00621-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2009

Gloria Celeste Loving v. City of Houston

Gloria Celeste Loving appealed the trial court's summary judgment in her mandamus suit against the City of Houston, seeking disclosure of public information. The City refused, citing that the information involved juvenile law-enforcement records and was confidential under Texas Family Code section 58.007(c). Loving argued the juvenile, Michael Torres, was tried as an adult, which should allow disclosure. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that section 58.007(c) maintains confidentiality for juvenile records, even if the individual was later tried as an adult, as an earlier exception for such cases was intentionally removed from the statute. The court found the information confidential and thus the City had no duty to disclose it.

Public Information ActMandamus ActionConfidentiality of RecordsJuvenile LawFamily CodeGovernment CodeSummary JudgmentAppellate AffirmationLaw Enforcement RecordsTexas Courts
References
21
Case No. B-5535
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 1976

IND. FOUNDATION, ETC. v. Texas Ind. Acc. Bd.

This case addresses whether the Texas Open Records Act (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-17a) requires the Texas Industrial Accident Board to disclose workmen's compensation claim information to the Industrial Foundation of the South. The Supreme Court of Texas held that, with certain exceptions, the requested information constitutes "public information" and must be disclosed. The Court rejected the Board's arguments that its administrative rules or broad constitutional/common-law privacy rights made the information confidential. However, it recognized an exception for "highly intimate or embarrassing facts" that are not of legitimate public concern, as protected by the common-law right of privacy. The case was remanded to the trial court for an in camera review to identify and redact such confidential information in individual claim files. The Court also affirmed that the requestor's motives for seeking information are irrelevant to disclosure and that costs for providing records are borne by the requesting party.

Open Records ActPublic InformationWorkmen's CompensationRight to PrivacyGovernment TransparencyInformation DisclosureMandamus RemedyStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawJudicial Discretion
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1997

B-S Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Burns Bros. Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff, a heavy construction business, alleged that defendant Burns Brothers Contractors, Inc., a material supplier, and defendant Robert E. Anderson, a former key project estimator for plaintiff, conspired to interfere with plaintiff's contracts and misappropriated confidential information. Plaintiff contended that Anderson, upon joining Burns, used its confidential bidding information to secure contracts with Champion Paper Company, Inc., which were originally intended for plaintiff. The Supreme Court initially granted a temporary restraining order and an order of seizure for files taken by Anderson, but later vacated the restraining order. Plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to add a cause of action for tortious interference with prospective business relations, which the Supreme Court granted, while denying Burns' cross-motion to dismiss. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that plaintiff's allegations of misrepresentations and misappropriation of confidential information to gain a competitive advantage were sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.

Tortious InterferenceConfidential InformationTrade SecretsCompetitive AdvantageMotion to DismissLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewCommercial DisputeEmployment LawUnfair Competition
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Godinez v. Siena College

Plaintiff, an alumnus of Siena College, initiated a lawsuit against Siena College and Shirley Staley, a nurse employed at the Capital District Psychiatric Center (CDPC). The action stemmed from Staley's report to a crisis team about potential violent behavior by the plaintiff at his graduation ceremony, information allegedly based on statements from the plaintiff's mother. Following this, Siena College declared the plaintiff 'persona non grata' and barred him from campus. The plaintiff alleged that Staley negligently disclosed inaccurate confidential information and that Siena College negligently barred him from campus without due process. The Supreme Court granted Siena College's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it, and subsequently dismissed the complaint against Staley at the close of the plaintiff's case. The appellate court affirmed both decisions, ruling that Siena College had the authority to ban the plaintiff as an alumnus and that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case against Staley because the alleged confidential information was deemed manufactured and thus lacked confidentiality.

Student conductPersona non grataConfidentiality breachMental health informationSummary judgmentDismissal of complaintAppellate reviewEducation lawExecutive lawCivil rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Garland v. PUBLIC UTILITY COM'N OF TEXAS

This case addresses a challenge to rules adopted by the Public Utility Commission concerning the confidentiality of competitively sensitive information provided by municipal utilities. The Commission's rule 25.93 allowed it to unilaterally determine the validity of a utility's confidentiality claims and release such information, even without a prior request. The appellants, a coalition of cities operating municipal electric utilities, contended that this rule overstepped the Commission's authority and conflicted with the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA). Specifically, they argued that TPIA section 552.133 grants public power utilities the right to designate 'competitive matters' as exempt from public disclosure, with only the attorney general or a court capable of overriding this protection under narrow conditions. The Court sided with the cities, ruling that subsections (c)(2) and (g)(3) of rule 25.93 contradicted the Commission's statutory mandate under utilities code section 39.155 to safeguard competitively sensitive information, in light of the TPIA's provisions. As a result, the court reversed the Commission's decision, declared the disputed subsections of the rule invalid, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

Public Utility CommissionTexas Public Information ActCompetitively Sensitive InformationUtility RegulationRule ValidityStatutory InterpretationConfidentialityDirect AppealMunicipal UtilitiesOpen Records
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 1,473 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