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

John B. Ex Rel. L.A. v. Goetz

This memorandum addresses the Defendants' motion to vacate a Consent Decree concerning the provision of medical services to over 500,000 Medicaid-eligible children in Tennessee. The Plaintiffs, John B. and other minors, had previously filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the state failed to provide Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) services under the Medicaid Act. Defendants sought to vacate or modify the Consent Decree, citing new legal developments from Westside Mothers II and Brown v. Tennessee Dept. of Finance & Admin. The Court acknowledges these cases but ultimately denies the Defendants' motion to vacate and their alternate argument for modification, finding that the Consent Decree's provisions for outreach services and mandated medical assistance remain enforceable under federal law. The memorandum details the state's historical non-compliance and the ongoing necessity of the decree to ensure children receive essential healthcare.

Medicaid ActEPSDT servicesChildren's healthcareConsent DecreeState waiver programFederal fundingOutreach servicesMedical assistanceCompliance issuesManaged Care Organizations
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Briley

This case involves a 1974 consent decree limiting public access to arrest records of individuals not convicted of charges, entered into by John Doe (plaintiff class representative), Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, and the State of Tennessee. The plaintiff filed a motion to assure compliance, alleging the defendants violated the decree by disseminating arrest records, including posting "johns" on the internet. Defendants Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) and Metro, along with intervenors The Tennessean and NewsChannel 5, moved to dissolve the decree. The court found that the constitutional right underpinning the 1974 decree, related to reputation and due process, has eroded due to subsequent Supreme Court decisions like Paul v. Davis. Additionally, Tennessee statutory laws (T.C.A. § 10-7-503 and § 38-6-120) now mandate public access to arrest records. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiff's motion for compliance, granted the defendants' and intervenors' motions to dissolve the 1974 consent decree, and dismissed the case, noting that the 1973 consent decree, which addresses employment-related record use, remains in effect.

Consent DecreeRule 60(b) MotionDue Process ClauseFourteenth AmendmentRight of PrivacyArrest RecordsPublic Records ActConstitutional LawJudicial ReviewModification of Injunction
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Environmental Abatement, Inc. v. Astrum R.E. Corp.

This case addresses whether a settlement judge can enter a consent decree when a party withdraws its consent to an oral agreement reached during a judicial settlement conference. Mahan Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, Inc. (Mahan) appealed after a settlement judge entered a compromise and settlement order despite Mahan's explicit withdrawal of consent. The appellate court found that the oral agreement was not made 'on the record' or 'in open court,' thus allowing Mahan to withdraw its assent. Furthermore, the court determined that the settlement judge, acting as a dispute resolution neutral under Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 31, lacked the authority to enter a dispositive order. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, vacated the Order of Compromise and Settlement, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Consent DecreeOral AgreementSettlement ConferenceWithdrawal of ConsentJudicial AuthorityAppellate ReviewContract LawCivil ProcedureLocal RulesMediation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frew v. Gilbert

This civil action, filed on September 1, 1993, addresses the alleged failure of the State of Texas to implement a Medicaid program ensuring timely, comprehensive healthcare for over 1.5 million indigent children eligible for the Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program. Plaintiffs moved to enforce multiple provisions of a 1996 consent decree, alleging defendant non-compliance in areas like outreach, medical and dental checkups, managed care operations, and provider training. The court found defendants in violation of numerous decree provisions, citing insufficient outreach, inadequate provision of checkups (especially dental and for specific subgroups), data inaccuracies, and failures in managed care implementation. Defendants' objections to enforceability, based on § 1983 and Eleventh Amendment immunity, were largely rejected, with the court affirming its jurisdiction to enforce provisions stemming from actionable federal rights under the Medicaid Act. The opinion concludes by detailing the specific violations and affirming the enforceability of the decree's terms, while acknowledging some of defendants' recent improvement efforts.

Medicaid ProgramEPSDT ServicesChildren's HealthcareConsent Decree EnforcementState Non-ComplianceManaged Care SystemOutreach EffectivenessDental CheckupsMedical CheckupsTransportation Assistance
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murillo v. Texas a & M University System

Plaintiff Berene Murillo filed a class action lawsuit against the Texas A & M University System and Dr. Edward A. Hiler, alleging widespread misclassification of agricultural workers as independent contractors. This misclassification led to various violations including the Fair Labor Standards Act, Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Federal Insurance Contribution Act, Civil Rights Act, and Texas Revised Civil Statutes. Specifically, the suit claimed failures to pay minimum wage, social security excise taxes, and unemployment benefits. Following extensive negotiations, the parties reached a settlement, which the Court reviewed and approved as fair and adequate. The resulting Agreed Class Action Consent Decree mandates defendants to pay damages to class members, correct social security accounts, and implement new employment practices to ensure compliance with federal labor laws, thereby preventing future misclassification of workers.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActAgricultural WorkersIndependent ContractorsWage and HourSocial Security TaxesUnemployment BenefitsConsent DecreeSettlement AgreementEmployee Misclassification
References
3
Case No. 13-01-00119-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2002

McAllen Police Officer's Union and the City of McAllen, Texas v. Ricardo Tamez, Individually and as President of the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, and McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association

The City of McAllen and the McAllen Police Officers Union (appellants) appealed a district court order compelling an election to determine the exclusive bargaining agent for the city's police officers. The Thirteenth District Court of Appeals in Texas reversed the trial court's decision. The appellate court held that selection by petition is a proper method for designating a bargaining agent and found no evidence of coercion in the petition's circulation. It further concluded that the appellees, Ricardo Tamez and the McAllen Professional Law Enforcement Association, failed to provide 'substantial support' to warrant an election, thus denying their requests for a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus.

Collective BargainingPolice UnionLabor LawElectionPetitionSupervisor InfluenceMajority RepresentationTexas Local Government CodeNational Labor Relations ActAppellate Review
References
26
Case No. 15-24-00116-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 12, 2025

Arnulfo Cortez, Jr.; Homero R. Balderas, Brian D. Nipper, Mark F. Van Rosendael and Bryan K. Hugghins v. Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; Gregory Stevens in His Capacity as Executive Director of the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And John Beauchamp, in His Official Capacity as Counsel for Texas Commission on Law Enforcement; And T.J. Vineyard, in His Official Capacity as Major for the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement

Appellants have neither identified a waiver of the Appellees’ sovereign immunity nor pled a cause of action to confer subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. Sovereign immunity protects state agencies and officers unless there is a clear waiver. Appellants' claims for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) are barred as administrative remedies were not exhausted, and they are not aggrieved by a final contested case decision. Similarly, claims under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA) fail to waive sovereign immunity and seek impermissible relief challenging an unripe agency order. Appellants' ultra vires claims and mandamus requests are also barred because Appellees acted within their statutory authority in taking disciplinary actions and issuing a warning, and no ministerial duty to grant SOAH hearings for all Appellants exists. Therefore, the trial court properly granted Appellees’ plea to the jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunitySubject Matter JurisdictionAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (UDJA)Ultra Vires ClaimsMandamus ReliefPeace Officer LicensureLaw Enforcement DisciplineTexas Courts of AppealsJudicial Review
References
38
Case No. 03-17-00478-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2017

in Re Volkswagen Clean Diesel Litigation: Texas Clean Air Act Enforcement Cases

The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, conditionally granted the State's petition for writ of mandamus. The State sought to abate eighteen later-filed cases, initiated by various counties against Volkswagen, concerning enforcement of the Texas Clean Air Act. The court determined that the common-law doctrine of dominant jurisdiction required the abatement of these later-filed suits because the State's enforcement action against Volkswagen was filed first. The court found that venue was proper in both sets of cases and that they were inherently interrelated, involving the same parties, controversy, and environmental law enforcement. The MDL statute was not intended to modify or create an exception to the dominant jurisdiction rule under these unique circumstances, where all actions sought to impose penalties for the same TCAA violations. Therefore, the MDL pretrial court abused its discretion by not granting the State's plea in abatement.

Mandamus ReliefDominant JurisdictionAbatement of SuitsTexas Clean Air ActMultidistrict Litigation (MDL)Environmental LawInterrelated CasesFirst-Filed RuleAppellate Court DecisionVolkswagen Litigation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. District Council of New York City

This civil RICO action involves a motion by the government to hold the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and its president, Peter Thomassen, in contempt of a 1994 consent decree. The central issue is whether collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) enacted in 2001, which modified job referral rules (specifically the "50/50 Rule" and the "Request System"), violated the consent decree by not providing prior notice to the government. The government argued that these changes diluted fair job assignments. The District Council contended that the consent decree's notice requirements did not extend to CBAs and that the changes were made to enhance union contractors' competitiveness. The court denied the government's motion, concluding that while the consent decree's notice provision was broad, it explicitly excluded CBAs from review by court officers, rendering the decree's applicability to future CBAs at best ambiguous and thus not a basis for a contempt finding.

RICO ActionLabor OrganizationConsent DecreeContempt MotionCollective Bargaining AgreementsJob Referral Rules50/50 RuleRequest SystemUnion GovernanceOrganized Crime
References
6
Case No. L-83-44-CA
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1986

Ibarra v. Texas Employment Commission

This case originated in 1983 when Fidel B. Ibarra, Jr. and Mario Esparza sued the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) for denying unemployment benefits to aliens without INS work authorization. The lawsuit was certified as a class action representing all aliens denied benefits for this reason. A partial consent decree was established in 1985, addressing procedural issues, and a proposed final consent decree defining "permanently residing in the United States under color of law" was preliminarily approved in April 1986. The TEC subsequently moved to invalidate the final decree, citing a change in federal policy and requesting the re-joinder of federal agencies as defendants. Chief Judge Justice denied TEC's motions, affirmed the Magistrate's recommendation for approval, and ultimately approved the consent decree, deeming it fair, adequate, reasonable, and legally sound. The decree specifies various categories of eligible aliens and outlines procedures for notice and redetermination of claims.

Unemployment BenefitsAlien EligibilityClass ActionConsent DecreeImmigration and Naturalization ServiceTexas Employment CommissionFederal FundingWork AuthorizationPermanent Residence Under Color of LawSettlement Agreement
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 1,941 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