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. 03-05-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2008

Diana Foster v. Texas Retirement System, Trustee for Texas Public Retired School Employees Group Insurance Program Aetna Life Insurance Company And Aetna Health Management, LLC

Diana Foster, a retired teacher, sued the Teacher Retirement System of Texas (TRS) and its insurance administrators, Aetna, after her claim for intravenous immune globulin infusion therapy (IVIG) was denied. She asserted claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the insurance code, and deceptive trade practices, along with a request for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted appellees' pleas to the jurisdiction, dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice, citing sovereign immunity. Foster appealed, arguing her declaratory judgment claim was not barred, legislative immunity was waived, the administrative procedures act provided for judicial review, and Aetna was not protected by sovereign immunity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that sovereign immunity applied to TRS and, by extension, to Aetna as its agent, and that Foster's claims did not fall under any exceptions for judicial review or waiver of immunity.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernment AgencyInsurance DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentAdministrative Procedures ActAgency AdjudicationJudicial ReviewBreach of ContractDuty of Good Faith and Fair DealingDeceptive Trade Practices Act
References
26
Case No. 03-03-00199-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2004

Valentine Cantu, Maria Padilla, Carolyn Chatham, Suzanne Hoog-Watson and George Denton v. Texas Workforce Commission and Employees Retirement System of Texas

This case, heard by the Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, involves an appeal from a summary judgment in a suit alleging age discrimination under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Appellants, former employees of the Texas Workforce Commission, claimed they were terminated due to age and that the Employees Retirement System of Texas misinterpreted a government code section regarding early retirement benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's summary judgment, concluding that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and that the Retirement System's interpretation of former government code section 814.1041(b) was correct. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying attorney's fees or excluding evidence.

Age discriminationSummary judgmentTexas Commission on Human Rights ActRetirement benefitsGovernment code interpretationStatutory constructionLegislative intentDisparate impactPretext methodPrima facie case
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Grant

This case addresses whether a husband can avoid a spousal support order by voluntarily retiring. The respondent, a 62-year-old bricklayer and construction worker, sought to terminate a $15 weekly support order for his 59-year-old wife after electing early retirement and receiving social security. The court found that eligibility for retirement does not negate the responsibility to support, emphasizing earning power over actual earnings. Citing precedents, the court asserted that a husband's obligation continues if he possesses sufficient means or earning capacity. The decision concluded that the respondent's early retirement appeared motivated by a desire to avoid support, especially since he could earn up to $1,800 annually under Social Security Law. The support order was continued, with an additional $3 weekly payment ordered to cover arrears.

AlimonySpousal SupportVoluntary RetirementEarning CapacitySocial Security BenefitsArrearsFamily CourtDomestic RelationsSupport Order ModificationAbility to Earn
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell v. Xerox Corp.

Fifteen plaintiffs sued Xerox Corporation and its associated benefit plans under ERISA, alleging that Xerox promised them unchanging lifetime medical and dental benefits during an early retirement program in 1987. They claimed Xerox breached this promise by introducing a reservation-of-rights clause in 2008 and by improperly changing the calculation of the 6% out-of-pocket maximum for medical expenses. Defendants moved to dismiss, citing lack of standing, untimeliness, and arguing the early retirement program was not an ERISA plan. The court denied dismissal on standing, statute of limitations, and the ERISA plan status, allowing most of plaintiffs' claims to proceed. However, it dismissed Xerox Corporation as a defendant for certain claims, along with the state law promissory estoppel claim and the claim for statutory damages under ERISA § 1132(c).

ERISAEmployee BenefitsRetirement PlansMedical BenefitsDental BenefitsPromissory EstoppelStatute of LimitationsStandingReservation of Rights ClausePlan Administrator Discretion
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olszowy v. Norton Co.

Plaintiff Henry Olszowy, a former employee of Norton Company, retired in 1983 with a special early retirement option. His pension benefits were subsequently reduced due to a workers' compensation award from a 1973 back injury, as Norton applied an offset provision. Olszowy sued Norton, the Retirement Program, and its trustee, claiming there was no agreement for such an offset. A jury found in favor of Olszowy, leading to a judgment against the Retirement Program and its trustee. The defendants appealed, arguing the jury's verdict was unsupported by evidence, as the agreement between Norton and the union clearly provided for the offset. The appellate court reversed the judgment, finding the jury's verdict was based on plaintiff's unsupported interpretation and not on sufficient evidence.

Pension offsetWorkers' compensation benefitsEarly retirement programCollective bargaining agreementContract interpretationJury verdict reversalSufficiency of evidenceWeight of evidenceAppellate reviewEmployee benefits
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2001

Claim of Amicola v. New York Telephone Co.

Claimant, an employee of New York Telephone, sustained a low back injury in December 1992 and underwent disc repair surgery. After returning to light duty, he experienced increased back pain, and despite his physician's direction to stop working, he applied for an early retirement incentive program in May 1994, which was granted the following month. The Workers’ Compensation Board subsequently reversed a WCLJ decision, ruling that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market due to his early retirement. The Court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence to support that the claimant elected to retire, influenced by a significant financial incentive, despite his injury. The decision emphasized that the availability of workers' compensation benefits would not cease with retirement, further supporting the voluntary nature of his withdrawal.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor MarketEarly RetirementDisabilityBack InjuryAppealBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceFinancial Incentive
References
5
Case No. Shelby Chancery No. 107732 C.A. No. 02A01-9704-CH-00074
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 1997

Doris Bridges v. Margaret Culpepper

Doris J. Bridges appealed the denial of unemployment compensation benefits by the Board of Review of the Tennessee Department of Employment Security, a decision upheld by the chancery court. Bridges voluntarily retired from the Internal Revenue Service under an early retirement program after 22 years of service. Her claim for benefits was denied on the grounds that she voluntarily quit without good cause connected to her work, and she did not qualify for statutory exceptions regarding "lack of work" or "labor-management contract or agreement." The Court of Appeals affirmed the chancery court's judgment, finding substantial and material evidence supporting the Board's conclusion that there was no lack of work at the IRS and that the early retirement offer was not a collective bargaining agreement. The court also found no error in the Board's refusal to consider new evidence due to the appellant's lack of diligence.

Unemployment CompensationVoluntary Early RetirementGood Cause for Leaving EmploymentLack of Work ExceptionLabor-Management ContractAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceMaterial EvidenceDenial of BenefitsDue Diligence
References
6
Case No. 02-14-00084-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2014

William D. Layton v. City of Fort Worth, City of Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund, and Board of City of Fort Worth Employees' Retirement Fund

Appellant William D. Layton sued the City of Fort Worth and its retirement entities after his disability benefits were terminated. The trial court granted the defendants' plea to the jurisdiction, which Layton appealed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that no statute provided a right to judicial review of the Board’s order terminating disability benefits. Furthermore, Layton had no vested property right in the benefits, and his due course of law claim seeking reinstatement of benefits would improperly control the Board's discretionary decision-making, thus implicating governmental immunity.

Disability BenefitsGovernmental ImmunityPlea to JurisdictionJudicial ReviewVested Property RightsDue Course of LawMunicipal Retirement SystemAdministrative OrderDiscretionary AuthorityTexas Constitution
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1990

Waldeck v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

A New York Supreme Court panel reversed a lower court's decision that had granted a deferred retirement allowance to a Department of Sanitation employee, Barbaro. Barbaro, a member of NYCERS since 1969, sought a deferred retirement allowance in July 1989, with an intended retirement date of August 18, 1989. However, he was dismissed on August 17, 1989, for soliciting unlawful payments. The appellate court determined that his dismissal occurred prior to his intended retirement date, thereby rendering him ineligible for the vested retirement allowance under Administrative Code § 13-173.1. The court clarified that the effective date of discharge was when the Commissioner signed the termination letter, irrespective of the date for commencing an appeal.

Retirement AllowancePublic EmployeeDismissalVestingAdministrative LawCivil ServiceNew York CityDepartment of SanitationAppellate ReviewEmployment Law
References
1
Case No. 03-05-00837-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2008

Lamb County Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas

Diana Foster, a retired teacher, appealed the dismissal of her lawsuit against the Teacher Retirement System (TRS) and Aetna Life Insurance Company after her intravenous immune globulin infusion therapy (IVIG) claims were denied. The lawsuit, initially filed by Foster and Quality Infusion Services, alleged breach of contract, bad faith, insurance code, and deceptive trade practices violations, alongside a request for a declaratory judgment. The trial court had granted pleas to the jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice, citing sovereign immunity. Foster argued against the immunity's application to her declaratory judgment claim and Aetna, asserting legislative waiver and a right to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that TRS and its agent Aetna were protected by sovereign immunity, the APA did not grant judicial review in this context, and dismissal was appropriate given the lack of jurisdiction.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance CoverageAdministrative Procedures ActJudicial ReviewBreach of ContractDue ProcessTexas Court of AppealsHealth Insurance
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 1,690 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