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. 2-02-016-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 2003

in Re Matthew T. Hinterlong

Matthew T. Hinterlong, the relator, sought mandamus relief against a trial court's order denying his motion to compel discovery of a student informant's identity. The informant's tip led to Hinterlong's expulsion from Arlington Martin High School (AMHS) for alleged alcohol possession. Hinterlong contended that the crime stoppers privilege did not apply or was unconstitutional as applied. The Court of Appeals determined that while the AMHS program qualified as a crime stoppers organization and the tip was privileged, the absolute application of the privilege in this civil case violated the Texas Constitution's open courts provision, especially given Hinterlong's acquittal and prima facie evidence of being 'set up'. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the mandamus, directing the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the tipster's information under Texas Rule of Evidence 508 to balance anonymity with Hinterlong's right to redress.

MandamusDiscovery DisputeCrime Stoppers PrivilegeOpen Courts ProvisionTexas ConstitutionZero Tolerance PolicyStudent ExpulsionMalicious ProsecutionDefamationNegligence
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re an Application to Quash a Subpoena Duces Tecum in Grand Jury Proceedings

The New York Court of Appeals held that a hospital under Grand Jury investigation for alleged crimes against patients (e.g., "no coding") cannot assert physician-patient or social worker-client privileges, or the patient’s right to privacy, to quash subpoenas for medical records. The court reasoned that these privileges are intended to protect patients, not to shield potential criminals. Additionally, the conditional privilege for material prepared for litigation (CPLR 3101 [d]) does not apply to Grand Jury subpoenas. The decision affirmed the denial of motions to quash subpoenas related to patients Maria M. and Daisy S., emphasizing the broad investigative powers of the Grand Jury.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegePatient PrivacyMaterial Prepared for LitigationHospital InvestigationMedicaid Fraud ControlCriminal ActivityNo Coding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 14, 2002

In Re Hinterlong

Matthew T. Hinterlong sought mandamus relief against Arlington ISD and Rynthia Clements after a trial court denied his motion to compel discovery of a student informant's identity. The informant's tip regarding alcohol in Hinterlong's car led to his expulsion under the school's zero-tolerance policy, despite his later acquittal on criminal charges. Hinterlong argued that the statutory crime stoppers privilege, which protected the informant, was unconstitutional as applied to his civil suit for malicious prosecution, defamation, and negligence, as it severely hampered his ability to pursue these common law claims. The court agreed, ruling that the privilege, in this specific public school zero-tolerance context, unreasonably abrogated Hinterlong's right to redress under the Texas Constitution's open courts provision. Consequently, the court conditionally granted the mandamus, ordering the trial court to vacate its prior order and conduct an in-camera review to determine what information, including the informant's identity, must be disclosed for a fair determination of the merits.

Mandamus ReliefCrime Stoppers PrivilegeOpen Courts ProvisionConstitutional ChallengeDiscovery DisputeStudent ExpulsionZero Tolerance PolicyAnonymous TipsterMalicious ProsecutionDefamation
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Community Service Society v. Welfare Inspector General

The case concerns an application by the Community Service Society (CSS) and Gladys Baez to quash a subpoena issued by the Welfare Inspector General of the State of New York. The subpoena sought privileged communications between Baez and a certified social worker at CSS concerning her marital status and employment, information relevant to an investigation of alleged welfare fraud. Petitioners argued the communications were protected under CPLR 4508. The Inspector General contended Baez waived the privilege by signing a public assistance form and that the communication revealed contemplation of a crime. The court ruled that the signed consent form did not constitute a clear waiver of privilege. It also determined that information about marital status or employment does not inherently reveal the contemplation of a crime for the purpose of the CPLR 4508 exception. Consequently, the court granted the motion to quash the subpoena, affirming the privileged nature of the communications, but denied Baez's requests for an injunction and class action certification.

Social worker-client privilegeCPLR 4508Subpoena quashWelfare fraud investigationWaiver of privilegeConfidential communicationsClass action denialExecutive LawSocial Services LawPenal Code
References
11
Case No. 11-09-00315-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2011

Kelvin E. Louis v. Office of Texas Attorney General Crime Victims' Services Division

Kelvin E. Louis appealed the trial court's decision, which granted the attorney general's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed his claim for crime victim compensation as untimely. Louis argued that the 40-day period for filing a lawsuit for judicial review should start from the date of his amended notice of dissatisfaction, not his initial notice. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the statutory 40-day period commences upon the filing of the initial notice of dissatisfaction. Consequently, Louis's lawsuit was deemed untimely, and the trial court correctly dismissed the case.

Judicial ReviewTimelinessCrime Victim CompensationPlea to JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureNotice of DissatisfactionSubject-Matter JurisdictionFiling DeadlineTexas Court of Appeals
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Southwestern Indemnity Co. v. Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n

This case involves an appeal from an order sustaining a plea of privilege filed by the Texas Employers’ Insurance Association (TEIA) to be sued in Dallas County, its established residence, rather than McLennan County where the suit was originally filed. The appellant, an insurance company, sought indemnity for a workmen’s compensation settlement concerning a deceased employee. The central legal issue was whether TEIA constitutes a private corporation or a state agency for venue purposes under Texas law. The court, analyzing Article 8308, Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats., determined that TEIA possesses all characteristics of a private corporation, including the ability to sue and be sued, elected directors, and profit distribution. Consequently, TEIA was deemed a 'person' entitled to claim venue privilege in its county of residence. The trial court’s decision to sustain TEIA's plea of privilege and transfer the case to Dallas County was affirmed, as the appellant failed to demonstrate an exception to the general venue statute.

Workers' CompensationVenuePlea of PrivilegeCorporation StatusState AgencyTexas LawCivil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationDomicileIndemnity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cope Construction Co. v. Power

Randy Power suffered injuries on June 13, 1975, while riding on a tailgate of a truck owned by Cope Construction Co. and driven by Herman Yeager. Power filed a workers' compensation claim and subsequently a common-law tort claim in Galveston County against Cope Construction Co. and Herman Yeager. Cope's carrier, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, also initiated a suit in Galveston County regarding Power's employment status. The appellants (Cope and Yeager) filed a plea of privilege, which was controverted by Power. Following motions to consolidate and reconsider, which were denied, the trial court overruled the plea of privilege. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the appellants had waived their plea of privilege through actions inconsistent with maintaining it, specifically by actively participating in and challenging the consolidation of the cases.

Plea of PrivilegeWaiver of VenueWorkers' CompensationTort ClaimMotion to ConsolidateAppellate ProcedureTexas LawCivil ProcedureVenue StatuteJudicial Conduct
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tullos v. Eaton Corp.

Tullos filed a cause of action against Eaton Corporation and James Herman Gibson in Angelina County following an injury caused by allegedly defective logging equipment. Gibson sought to transfer the case to Trinity County via a plea of privilege. The court determined that venue was proper in Angelina County for Eaton Corporation and that Gibson was a necessary party. This was due to the intertwined nature of the causes of action, particularly concerning comparative causation and the allocation of damages among multiple defendants. Consequently, the court reversed the order sustaining Gibson's plea of privilege, mandating that the entire case be tried in Angelina County.

VenuePlea of PrivilegeNecessary PartiesJoint LiabilityComparative CausationProducts LiabilityNegligenceDefective EquipmentWorkers’ Compensation LawTexas Civil Practice
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. People

This opinion addresses an application filed by an unnamed hospital, referred to as the 'Petitioner,' seeking to quash two Grand Jury subpoenas duces tecum. These subpoenas, issued in August 1982 by the Deputy Attorney-General for Medicaid fraud control, sought patient medical records, including 'progress notes' and 'mechanical ventilation flow sheets.' The hospital argued against disclosure based on patient privacy rights and the physician-patient privilege. The court, presided over by Justice George J. Balbach, denied the application, reaffirming that a hospital under investigation for potential crimes against its patients cannot assert these privileges to obstruct a Grand Jury investigation. The decision emphasized the Grand Jury's broad investigatory powers and the principle that privileges are intended to protect patients, not shield alleged wrongdoers.

Grand JurySubpoena Duces TecumPhysician-Patient PrivilegePatient PrivacyMedicaid Fraud ControlHospital RecordsConfidentialityQuash SubpoenaCriminal InvestigationStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 589 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