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. CA 13-01106
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2014

MONROE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S, MTR. OF

Petitioner, a bargaining representative for Deputy Sheriffs, sought to vacate an arbitration award that denied a grievance concerning holiday pay for five members on July 4, 2011. The Deputy Sheriffs were granted the day off with pay but were not compensated for their regular shifts in addition to the holiday pay, which petitioner alleged violated their collective bargaining agreement and Military Law § 249. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding that neither the CBA nor Military Law § 249 mandated the additional payment. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the arbitrator did not exceed his authority, his construction of the CBA was not irrational, and the award did not violate public policy.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementHoliday Pay DisputeMilitary Law BenefitsGrievance DenialDeputy SheriffsPublic PolicyVacate ArbitrationAppellate ReviewLabor Relations
References
6
Case No. 04-13-00080-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 17, 2013

Nelson Wolff, County Judge of Bexar County Texas, Bexar County Commissioners Paul Elizondo, Tommy Adkisson, Sergio Chico Rodriguez and Kevin Wolff And Bexar County, Texas v. Deputy Constables Association of Bexar

The Deputy Constables Association of Bexar County sued Nelson Wolff, et al., alleging a violation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act for failing to engage in collective bargaining. The case originated from the trial court's denial of Wolff's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. The central legal question on appeal was whether the Deputy Constables possessed the standing to collectively bargain under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174, which restricts this right to "police officers" employed in a political subdivision's "police department." The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, analyzed relevant statutory definitions and precedent, distinguishing between the Sheriff's Office (considered a "police department" for the county) and the Constable's Office. Concluding that Deputy Constables are not employed by the "police department" or the Sheriff's Office, the court determined they do not meet the statutory definition of "police officer" and thus lack standing to pursue their claim. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and rendered judgment in favor of Wolff, dismissing the suit.

Collective BargainingStandingPolice OfficersLocal Government CodeBexar CountyConstable's OfficeSheriff's OfficeStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPlea to Jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Monroe County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n & Monroe County/Monroe County Sheriff

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had denied a petition to confirm an arbitration award and granted a cross-petition to vacate it. The arbitration award mandated that Monroe County provide firearms and training to its deputies in the Civil Bureau of the Monroe County Sheriff's office. The Supreme Court had ruled that the award contravened public policy by infringing upon the Sheriff's discretionary authority under Judiciary Law § 400. However, the appellate court disagreed, concluding that the public policy exception did not meet the stringent criteria for overturning an arbitration award. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, thereby confirming the original arbitration award and denying the cross-petition.

Arbitration AwardPublic Policy ExceptionCollective Bargaining AgreementMonroe County SheriffCivil Bureau DeputiesFirearms TrainingHealth and SafetyAppellate Court DecisionVacating Arbitration AwardConfirming Arbitration Award
References
4
Case No. 09-04-477 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2005

James Vandevender v. Honorable G. Mitch Woods, in His Official Capacity as Sheriff of Jefferson County, Texas and Jefferson County, Texas

James VanDevender, a deputy sheriff, appealed a trial court's decision regarding his entitlement to full salary continuation after an on-the-job injury. He argued that Article III, Section 52e of the Texas Constitution, which authorizes counties to pay injured law enforcement officials, should be interpreted to allow salary payments beyond the expiration of a sheriff's term if the deputy is re-deputized and the disability continues into a subsequent term. The trial court had ruled that his benefits ceased with the end of the sheriff's initial term. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the plain language of Article III, Section 52e clearly states that salary payments 'shall cease on the expiration of the term of office to which such official was elected or appointed,' and this limitation applies even if the deputy is rehired for additional terms.

Public Official InjurySalary ContinuationConstitutional LawGovernment EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTerm LimitsJudicial ReviewTexas Court of AppealsDeputy SheriffJefferson County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hulbert v. Cortland County Sheriff's Department

Claimant, a former Cortland County Sheriff’s Deputy, sustained severe work-related injuries in 1981, leading to permanent disability and awarded workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, the self-insured employer disputed medical bills incurred between 2005 and 2006 for a pacemaker infection, suspecting the claimant settled a third-party malpractice action without consent. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found in favor of the medical providers due to the employer's failure to present evidence of such a settlement despite multiple adjournments. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, citing the employer's lack of diligence in timely submitting evidence, including a stipulation of discontinuance. The employer's appeal for full Board review was also denied.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionMalpractice SettlementEmployer ConsentForfeiture of BenefitsAdjournment DenialBoard ReviewDue DiligenceEvidence SubmissionPanel Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolff v. Deputy Constables Ass'n of Bexar County

Appellee Deputy Constables Association of Bexar County sued appellants Nelson Wolff, et al. for violating the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act by failing to engage in collective bargaining. This is an interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of Wolff's plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss. Wolff contended the trial court erred because the Deputy Constables lack standing under Texas Local Government Code Chapter 174. The court analyzed the definition of 'police officer' under the Act, which requires employment in the 'police department' of a political subdivision. While deputy sheriffs are considered part of the 'police department' for a county, the court found Deputy Constables are employed by the Constable's Office, not the 'police department' or Sheriff's Office. Therefore, the court concluded that the Deputy Constables do not meet the definition of 'police officer' under the Act, lack standing to bring suit, and reversed the trial court’s denial of Wolff’s plea to the jurisdiction, rendering judgment in favor of Wolff.

Collective BargainingFire and Police Employee Relations ActTexas Local Government Code Chapter 174StandingPlea to JurisdictionMotion to DismissDeputy ConstablesPolice Officers DefinitionAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration Between Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n & Monroe County

The petitioner, representing Deputy Sheriffs, challenged an arbitration award concerning holiday pay. Five Deputy Sheriffs, scheduled to work on July 4, 2011, received only eight hours of holiday pay despite being granted the day off, not their regular shift pay plus holiday pay. The petitioner argued that the collective bargaining agreement and Military Law § 249 mandated additional payment. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding neither required the additional payment. The Supreme Court confirmed this award, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no excess of arbitral power, no irrational construction of the CBA, and no violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceArbitration AwardPublic PolicyMilitary LawHoliday PayDeputy SheriffsCPLR Article 75AffirmanceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 03-00-00398-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2001

Burnet County Sheriff's Department and Burnet County, Texas v. Zarina Carlisle

Zarina Carlisle, a senior correctional officer, sued Burnet County Sheriff's Department and Burnet County for wrongful termination under the Texas Whistleblower Act, alleging retaliation for reporting unprofessional conduct by her supervisor, Captain Wendell Gilmore. Carlisle reported Gilmore's cursing and 'bad-mouthing' to Sheriff Joe Pollack, believing it violated county personnel policies and constituted disorderly conduct under the Texas Penal Code. Burnet County filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Carlisle failed to allege a 'violation of law' sufficient to waive sovereign immunity. The appellate court agreed, finding that internal personnel policies do not constitute a 'law' under the Whistleblower Act unless promulgated pursuant to a statute or ordinance, which was not established. Furthermore, Carlisle's allegations did not meet the elements for disorderly conduct. The court concluded that Carlisle failed to plead a cause of action sufficient to invoke the Act's waiver of sovereign immunity, reversing the district court's denial of Burnet County's plea to the jurisdiction.

Wrongful TerminationWhistleblower ActSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionPublic EmployeeViolation of LawPersonnel PolicyDisorderly ConductTexas Court of AppealsAbuse of Authority
References
43
Case No. 05-20-00855-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

Emanuel Lewis, on Behalf of Himself and a Class of Certain Dallas County Detention Service Officers v. Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown, in Her Official Capacity

Officer Emanuel Lewis, a detention security officer, initiated a lawsuit against Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown, in her official capacity, seeking injunctive relief concerning the operation and conditions of the Dallas County Jail amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. Lewis, on behalf of himself and a class of Dallas County detention service officers, alleged the Sheriff acted ultra vires by failing to maintain a sanitary jail and abate a public health nuisance, and was negligent. The trial court granted Sheriff Brown's plea to the jurisdiction, dismissing the claims. On appeal, the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Lewis failed to plead an actionable ultra vires claim as the Sheriff's actions were within her discretionary authority, and the Texas Tort Claims Act does not waive immunity for claims seeking solely injunctive relief.

COVID-19Jail ConditionsGovernmental ImmunityUltra ViresInjunctive ReliefTexas Tort Claims ActDiscretionary AuthorityMinisterial DutiesPublic Health NuisanceClass Action
References
30
Case No. 03-99-00502-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2000

Clayton Miller, D/B/A Trucks, Etc. v. Bell County, Texas, and Dan Smith, Sheriff of Bell County, Texas

Clayton Miller, operating as Trucks, Etc., sued Bell County, Texas, and Sheriff Dan Smith for damages. Miller claimed agents of the Bell County Sheriff's Department negligently released a truck he held title to, in violation of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. The district court granted summary judgment to the appellees based on sovereign and official immunity. The appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment, stating that Miller failed to establish legislative permission to sue for damages, and merely alleging a violation of law does not waive sovereign immunity for a tort claim seeking damages.

Sovereign ImmunityOfficial ImmunitySummary JudgmentTort ClaimNegligenceTexas Code of Criminal ProcedureTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate ReviewGovernmental ImmunityDamages Claim
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 6,708 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