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. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fickling v. New York State Department of Civil Service

This case involves a lawsuit brought by eight plaintiffs, primarily African-American and Hispanic former employees, against the New York State Department of Civil Service and Westchester County Department of Social Services. Plaintiffs alleged that their termination as Welfare Eligibility Examiners, due to failing competitive examinations, was unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Executive Law § 296. They claimed the examination had a racially disparate impact and lacked content validity, failing to serve the defendants' employment goal of fair competition. The court found that the examinations indeed had a disparate impact on African-Americans and Hispanics and that the defendants failed to provide credible evidence that the tests served a legitimate business goal. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActDisparate ImpactCivil Service ExaminationsContent ValidityJob AnalysisRacial DiscriminationHispanic DiscriminationWelfare Eligibility ExaminersNew York State Law
References
8
Case No. 03-21-00571-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2023

Texas Department of State Health Services, and Dr. Jennifer A. Shuford, in Her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services v. Sky Marketing Corp., D/B/A Hometown Hero Create a Cig Temple, LLC Darrell Surif And David Walden

The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) and its Commissioner appealed a trial court's denial of their plea to the jurisdiction and the granting of a temporary injunction. The injunction prevented DSHS from enforcing amendments to controlled substance definitions and a website rule concerning Delta-8 THC. Appellees argued the Commissioner acted beyond her authority (ultra vires) and violated the Texas Administrative Procedure Act by failing to follow proper procedures for schedule modifications. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that appellees had standing and presented valid ultra vires and APA claims. The appellate court also upheld the temporary injunction, citing the appellees' probable right to relief and the likelihood of imminent and irreparable harm.

Hemp legalizationDelta-8 THCControlled Substances Act (TCSA)Administrative Procedure Act (APA)Ultra ViresTemporary InjunctionSovereign ImmunityPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Department of State Health Services (DSHS)Cannabis regulation
References
64
Case No. 03-22-00126-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2024

Greg Abbott in His Official Capacity as Governor of the State of Texas, Stephanie Muth in Her Official Capacity of Commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services, and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Jane Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor John Doe, Individually and as Parent and Next Friend of Mary Doe, a Minor And Dr. Megan Mooney

This case involves an appeal concerning a temporary injunction against the State of Texas for issuing a directive that classifies gender-affirming medical care for minors as child abuse. Appellees, including parents of a transgender adolescent and a psychologist, sued to enjoin the State from initiating child abuse investigations based on this directive. The trial court denied the State's plea to the jurisdiction and granted a temporary injunction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of jurisdiction and the injunction against the Department of Family and Protective Services and its Commissioner, concluding that the directive constituted an invalid rule under the APA and caused irreparable harm. However, it reversed the denial of jurisdiction and dismissed claims against the Governor, stating he lacked authority to control investigatory decisions.

Gender-affirming careChild abuse policyTemporary injunctionAdministrative Procedure ActUltra viresParental rightsEqual protectionDue processState government authorityJudicial review
References
62
Case No. 17-0345
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2019

Patricia Mosley v. Texas Health and Human Services Commission and Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

Patricia Mosley challenged her placement on the Employee Misconduct Registry by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. She sought judicial review without filing a motion for rehearing, relying on a misleading agency letter and regulation. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed that a motion for rehearing is a jurisdictional prerequisite for judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. However, the court also ruled that the agency's affirmative misrepresentation regarding the appeal process violated Mosley's due process rights, preventing her from exhausting administrative remedies. The case was remanded to the Health and Human Services Commission to allow Mosley to file a motion for rehearing, thereby restoring her opportunity for judicial review.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewDue ProcessMotion for RehearingEmployee Misconduct RegistryTexas Health and Human Services CommissionTexas Department of Family and Protective ServicesJurisdictional PrerequisiteStatutory InterpretationAgency Misrepresentation
References
43
Case No. 03-03-00355-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2004

Albert Hawkins, in His Capacity as Commissioner of Health & Human Services The Texas Health & Human Services Commission And the Texas Department of Health v. Dallas County Hospital District D/B/A Parkland Health and Hospital System

This case involves an appeal concerning the rules and formulas used to reimburse Texas teaching hospitals for graduate medical education (GME) costs from Medicaid funds. The core dispute is whether the Texas Health and Human Services Commission was legally mandated to use a specific statutory formula based on a hospital's annual actual GME costs, or if it could continue using its existing rule, which derived costs from a 1984 base-period figure adjusted for inflation, mirroring the federal Medicare approach. Dallas County Hospital District, operating Parkland Memorial Hospital, sued the department, alleging underpayment of over $72 million due to the use of the incorrect formula. The district court ruled in favor of Parkland, declaring the department's rules invalid. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the statutory formula for reimbursement was mandatory, while the department's discretion was limited to calculating variables within that prescribed formula, not to establishing an alternative method.

Medicaid reimbursementGraduate Medical EducationTeaching HospitalsStatutory interpretationTexas Health and Human Services CommissionParkland Memorial HospitalHealthcare fundingAdministrative lawJudicial reviewHealth policy
References
13
Case No. 13-14-00113-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2015

Texas Health and Human Services Commission and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services v. Jose P. Baldonado

The case involves an appeal from the denial of a plea to the jurisdiction by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and the Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services (DADS). Appellee Jose P. Baldonado sued for age discrimination and retaliation under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (TCHRA) after being denied a position by HHSC and subsequently terminated by DADS. Appellants argued a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting Baldonado failed to establish a prima facie case for both claims and did not exhaust administrative remedies against DADS. The Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Baldonado raised sufficient fact questions regarding his qualifications, the causal link for retaliation, and the exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court highlighted DADS's status as an agency within HHSC and its participation in the administrative complaint process as evidence of proper notice.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRetaliationPlea to JurisdictionTCHRAPrima Facie CaseAdministrative RemediesSovereign ImmunityInterlocutory AppealTexas Court of Appeals
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Knudsen v. Nassau County Department of Social Services

Thomas and Carol Knudsen initiated an Article 78 proceeding against the Nassau County Department of Social Services, challenging three determinations. First, the denial of emergency assistance for clothing destroyed by pinworms was challenged, with the court ruling that the county's reliance on a State regulation limiting emergency assistance was invalid. The defense was struck, and the request was remanded for re-evaluation. Second, the reduction of their Aid to Dependent Children grant in December 1973, without proper notice and opportunity for a hearing, was annulled. Third, the denial of assistance to Mr. Knudsen in January 1974, due to the department's failure to transfer his name for supplemental security income, was also addressed. The court granted judgment in favor of the petitioners, directing relief consistent with its rulings and ordering the Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Social Services to appear and explain the department's persistent policy regarding emergency assistance limitations.

Emergency AssistanceSocial Services LawPublic AssistanceAid to Dependent ChildrenWelfare BenefitsDue ProcessFair HearingAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationNassau County DSS
References
27
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Showing 1-10 of 12,994 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